The book co-authored by Nicky Hager and Jon Stephenson, “Hit and Run”, contains allegations that some people have said could amount to war crimes.

Why does it matter? Horrible things happen in war, so let’s just get over it. Right?

Well, no. There are rules around armed conflict that we, as a state, have agreed to be bound by. These rules provide the parameters within which, for example, we can legally kill someone, how we treat prisoners of war, and the type of weapons that we can use.

The technical term for these rules is “international humanitarian law”. This may seem confusing at first, and also paradoxical, in that there is surely nothing “humanitarian” about war at all?

But, in truth, the law of armed conflict attempts to bring an element of humanity back into war. At its core, it is about ensuring a humanitarian ethos in conflict.

The high point in setting these rules was the 1949 Geneva Conventions (there are four of them, along with three additional protocols). Arising out of the horrors of the Second World War, these Conventions were supposed to avoid the mistakes of that conflict by setting clear rules around the conducting of hostilities.

There is a strong incentive for the parties to an armed conflict to respect these rules. As soon as one of the parties fails to comply, then the other parties are likely to follow suit. This results, of course, in less protection for your own people involved in the conflict. Of course, some groups do not care about that (such as armed non-state actors like ISIS), but normally states will have this direct incentive to ensure compliance to be able to demand the same treatment of their own citizens.

Beyond this direct incentive, there is an undeniable moral element to compliance with the rules of armed conflict. If a country wants to hold itself out as a moral example to others on the international stage, then compliance with these rules is a bare minimum.

Therefore, compliance with these rules is absolutely critical. It is essential to how we, as a country, act internationally as humanely as possible in a context that actually speaks to the worst of humanity.

The core feature of international humanitarian law is the principle of distinction. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which is responsible for monitoring compliance with international humanitarian law, describes this principle as being:

The parties to the conflict must at all times distinguish between civilians and combatants. Attacks may only be directed against combatants. Attacks must not be directed against civilians.

In very basic terms, then, you can kill a soldier, but not a civilian.

So fundamental is this rule that the International Court of Justice has held that the principle of distinction was one of the “cardinal principles” of international humanitarian law and one of the “intransgressible principles of international customary law” (Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion – as quoted by ICRC).

A “war crime”, then, is a grave (or serious) breach of international humanitarian law (as per the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court). Specifically, under the Geneva Conventions, this includes wilful killing and destruction of property “not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly”.

It is for this reason that some people have said the allegations in the book could amount to a war crime. The killing of the civilians is clearly not allowed by international humanitarian law and, on the face of it, the allegations in the book would amount to a breach.

There are also other allegations in the book. These include that the wounded were not taken care of, that an insurgent was tortured, the wilful destruction of property – all of which would be additional breaches of international humanitarian law. Potentially, there could be a further question around whether the alleged attacks could amount to a reprisal against a civilian population, which is also forbidden.

Also relevant, perhaps, is whether the New Zealand troops could be said to be part of an occupying force in Afghanistan. As an occupier, you have certain additional duties to protect the occupied population.

Clearly, then, there are a number of legal issues that could potentially arise out of what is alleged to have happened. These issues, including the question of whether the NZ troops aided and abetted any other members of the ISAF force in committing any war crime, must be determined.

Of course, things in war are not so black and white. War is complex, and especially in Afghanistan, where one insurgent (be it Taliban, Hesbi-e-Islami, or Al Qaeda) looks the same as a civilian. It is an extraordinarily complex theatre of war that our troops were operating in.

It might be that the New Zealand troops did everything they could under these difficult circumstances.

The point right now is that we have no way of knowing that. Now that these allegations have been raised in the open, there must be an equally open and transparent investigation into whether they can be established and whether there are any legal consequences that necessarily flow.

The military should welcome such an investigation. The military needs to constantly hold itself to the highest of standards in what are the most difficult of circumstances. From this point on, the military should simply accept this and seek to recover the faith of the New Zealand public into how our military conducts itself.

The alternative is unthinkable. The alternative is a New Zealand that does not care, that does not believe in acting morally, and refuses to uphold the principles that we are supposed to fight for.

Last year I went to Australia and visited a family of refugees I had known when they were stuck in Thailand. They had gone to Thailand to flee persecution in their home country.

After a stressful and uncertain period of almost five years when they were forced to live in Thailand without any legal status, without any right to work, or any education for their children, they were fortunate to be resettled in Australia.

In Australia, they no longer have to fear being arrested at any moment for being illegal. They can (and do) work. Their kids are going to school and even speak now with Aussie accents. For this entire family, resettlement had completely and utterly changed their lives.

So, I was a strong proponent of the government doubling our resettlement quota. I have seen first hand the benefits it brings to refugees, while also strengthening our communities through diversity. In my experience, the children of refugees are often very successful – sharing their parents’ ability to endure.

But, the decision this week on our refugee quota was as disappointing as it was predictable.

The decision to raise the quota to 1000 refugees per year from the current 750 does nothing to redress the three decades of no increase to our refugee quota.

It is a token gesture designed to mollify proponents for more resettlement and to be able to tell the general population that the government is “doing something”.

The quota will only be increased from 2018, which is another compromise. It seems that the “optics” of being seen to do something trumps over actually acting in a protection oriented direction to substantively contribute to providing real and enduring protection from persecution.

For this is the classic, tried, and tested strategy of this government. I call it the compromise strategy. It goes a little something like this:

Deny there is a problem

Do some polling

Blame someone else for the policy

Do some polling

Come up with some stats to claim that things aren’t as bad as they are set out to be

Design a brave and thoughtful response to the problem that inspires New Zealanders Do some polling.

Announce that you are open to doing something, while continuing to minimise the problem

Do some polling

Say something like “what difference can we make? We’re so small?” whether it be refugees/human rights/climate change

Run on a platform at the United Nations that New Zealand deserves to be on the Security Council because we punch above our weight and uphold the importance of human rights

Do some polling

Announce a policy response that tinkers with the problem

The problem with this approach, and while it might keep you in government, is that it does not actually lead to any comprehensive governing. Any real governing is put off for another time. But, when all you care about is power, real governing is never the goal. Is it?

For the population, real governing remains elusive. And, now we are seeing the real results of a lack of proper governance through the growing inequalities in our society all too evident by what is happening at Te Puea Marae.

The current global refugee framework is under extreme pressure. The numbers of those forcibly displaced is at greater levels than ever seen on the planet before.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees there are approximately 59.5 million individuals forcibly displaced. On average, 42,500 people a day are forced to leave their homes.

Of those, 19.5 million are refugees. The definition of being a refugee is that you are unable to return to your country due to a substantiated and intolerable risk of facing persecution for discriminatory reasons (under the 1951 Refugee Convention).

Of those 19.5 million refugees, 51% are children.

The countries hosting the highest number of refugees are Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia. Not Europe.

Lebanon hosts just over 1 million refugees, with a population of barely over 4 million before the Syrian civil war. According to Amnesty International, that amounts to 1 in 5 people in the country is a refugee.

Canada has announced that it will take up to 44,800 resettled refugees during 2016. Using a back of the envelope calculation, I get a ratio of about 1:850 (for this year).

But down here, we’ll get 1,000 from 2018. Again, doing my back of the envelope calculations (actually, it’s my smart phone), I get a ratio of 1:4,600 (in 2018).

Yes, the numbers are insurmountable (and my stats fallible). But, the simple truth is that our contribution is miniscule. As a country who is surrounded by the ocean, resettlement is a tangible way for us to contribute. The government had a chance to significantly increase our contribution, but instead chose the road of compromise. Unfortunately, that seems to be a road well-travelled.

While 250 more is better than nothing, I would prefer something more than compromise. I would like to see New Zealand actually meet its supposed values and be an active, constructive player internationally.

This Monday, our ANZAC day of remembrance, saw a horrific crime take place in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Mr Xulhaz Mannan and his friend, Tanay Mojumdar, were hacked to death in Mr Mannan’s apartment. Both men were gay and trans activists, murdered by people driven by hate, fear and ignorance.

Despite everything that I know about Bangladesh, and the very real dangers for LGBTI activists in that country, these murders have truly shocked me. I hope, but have little faith, that the Bangladeshi authorities will bring to justice those responsible for these despicable acts.

These killings are the latest in a long line of murders dating back to early 2015 that have been attributed to extremists. Amnesty International says that the Bangladeshi authorities have failed to call anyone to account for these crimes meaning that these extremists can simply act with impunity.

Amnesty International’s South Asia Director, Champa Patel, says:

“There have been four deplorable killings so far this month alone. It is shocking that no one has been held to account for these horrific attacks and that almost no protection has been given to threatened members of civil society. Bangladeshi authorities have a legal responsibility to protect and respect the right to life. They must urgently focus their energies on protecting those who express their opinions bravely and without violence, and bringing the killers to justice. The authorities must strongly condemn these horrific attacks, something they have failed to do so far.”

The lack of protection offered by the Bangladeshi authorities is deplorable. They are failing their own citizens and, through this lack of action, are ultimately complicit in these killings.

Bangladesh is one of the handful of countries in the world that still criminalises homosexuality. Its penal code is a colonial hangover dating from 1860. The section criminalising homosexual conduct reads (taken from the International Lesbian and Gay Association website, www.ilga.org):

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with man, woman, or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to life, or up to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine.

As you can see, the vocabulary is as outdated as the thinking behind its continued existence. Yet, the threat of the law remains for any of those individuals who dare to express a sexual orientation or gender identity that does not conform to these outdated norms.

From reporting, Mr Mannan and Mr Mojumdar, were openly gay and worked together on the only LGBTI magazine in Bangladesh, Roopban. The BBC reports that they came out publicly in order to spread tolerance and understanding believing that through more understanding more Bangladeshis would come to accept LGBTI individuals leading to a repeal in the legislation.

The two men were also the organisers of the annual “Rainbow Rally” – a rally for gay and transgender youth in Bangladesh that first took place in 2014. It was scheduled again to to take place on 14 April this year. But, due to a number of threats, the police took the step to cancel the rally.

And now, those same proponents of hate have gone on to kill these good men. These good men who only sought to spread understanding and tolerance. These good men who risked their personal safety so that others could benefit from that understanding and tolerance, but who went on to pay too great a price.

I feel very fortunate to be able to express my opinions without fear of violence. We must not take that freedom for granted, and we must continue to demand justice and fairness for all people, regardless of their particular characteristics.

For what it is worth, I will add my small voice to those two brave men that Bangladesh must change. The proponents of fear and hate cannot win out. The leaders of Bangladesh must take deliberate steps to root out these criminals, protect their own people, and foster a society of tolerance and free expression.

So, next year on ANZAC day, I will pay my respects and acknowledge the importance of the day. But, I will also remember these two brave and good men who died needlessly for their cause and hope that their legacy will ultimately be one of change.

On 7 March 2016 the EU-Turkey summit lead to a deal being agreed on the “refugee crisis” now confronting Europe. The deal is a terrible one, undermines protection, and completely ignores the human reality of those forcibly displaced by conflict and persecution.

Rather than focus on protection and upholding human dignity, the deal centres around number control purely in the interest of fortress Europe.

The deal requires, among other things, that “all new irregular migrants crossing from Turkey into Greek islands as from 20 March 2016 will be returned to Turkey.”

The phrase “irregular migrants” deliberately misleads and is used in our region by Australia to justify its punitive and inhumane treatment of those arriving by boat. The reality of fleeing persecution is that such flight will, in all likelihood, be “irregular”. Indeed, the Refugee Convention (at Article 31) specifically states that no refugee should be penalised for illegal entry recognising that refugees will be faced with desperate choices in seeking protection.

That word – “protection” – is key.

The purpose of the Refugee Convention is to ensure protection from being persecuted. That is, where you are unable to access protection in your home country, the international community will step in to provide that protection. International refugee law is premised on this principle of surrogacy of protection.

Importantly, then, the Refugee Convention is a human rights remedy. It is not an immigration tool. It is not a mechanism to control migration flows.

The Refugee Convention is geared towards ensuring access to protection. The rights contained in that convention for refugees include key socio-economic rights, such as the right to work, to achieve a level of protection where human dignity prevails.

The EU-Turkey deal betrays this guarantee of access to protection and is inconsistent with any concept of dignity. The deal is premised on Turkey being a “safe third country” under EU law. This concept requires that refugees be able to access sufficiency of protection in Turkey.

But, the flaw in this is that Turkey provides no protection in law to refugees from countries such as Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Turkey does not allow individuals from non-European countries to seek asylum. Therefore, these “irregular migrants” will be sent to a country where they can have no reasonable chance of accessing any level of rights. What will they do? What would you do?

Human Rights Watch recently asked refugees in Greece about their experiences in Turkey, and I quote from Human Rights Watch:

“In Turkey we didn’t feel safe,” said Shabby Hosseini, a 22-year-old woman from Afghanistan, who reached Greece with her husband and three children under age 8. “We were sleeping in forests, places with animals. We spent days without food and water. There was no safety.”

Omar, 35, an Iraqi, told us: “The authorities put us in a military camp where we were not allowed to get out. It was in a dangerous location because bombardments were going on around. We could hear the bombs. We stayed there for seven days. We were 2,000 people and there were only two toilets, one for men and one for women. You had to wait for a full day at the queue in order to go to the toilet. Then we were transferred to the stadium. And there too, we were not allowed to get out. They put us in facilities where even animals can’t live.”

Abdelrahman, 48, who lost his legs in the war in Syria and is in a wheelchair, said: “We starved in Turkey, we didn’t have a job. We had nothing. We went to Turkey to seek help but we didn’t find any help there.”

These are real people with real experiences. They are more than mere numbers on a spreadsheet.

The truth is that there is no tangible access to protection in Turkey. European leaders know this, but are happy to outsource their international obligations to Turkey to suit domestic political imperatives.

Consistent with this failure of principled decision-making, the EU-Turkey deal includes a provision for greater access to European visas for Turkish citizens. The use of refugees as bargaining chips is simply immoral, but reflects the current European approach to protection.

Ultimately, this EU-Turkey deal will not work. There will be challenges requiring due process and a robust review of claims for asylum. These challenges will expose the flawed and, ultimately, illegal nature of the deal. The race to the bottom will end messily, but in the interim thousands will endure intolerable insecurity.

In 2015 I returned back to Aotearoa after working for many years abroad. I was lucky to work in different countries with some incredible people, but nothing beats coming home. This is a wonderful country with people up and down the country contributing to their communities in various, positive ways.

But, it is hard not to notice the creeping in of the “me” culture. This sense of entitlement and disregard of others, absent compassion, is an unfortunate yet unavoidable aspect of living in this country today.

It appears in work conversations, at social events, and is all too evident in the mainstream commentary where selfishness has an unusual and bizarre dominance. Ultimately, this is driven by self-interest and greed, but it is also driven by an element of fear.

These driving factors also reflect the economic orthodoxy that we follow in this country. The mantra of the free market, unrestricted by government influence, is the cure to all evils, economic or otherwise. The free market, driven by self-interest and greed, is supposedly the answer.

Yet, in 2008, we saw the fallacy of this orthodoxy. The global financial crisis, caused by self-interest and greed, saw even Alan Greenspan concede the flaws of this model.

What surprises me, then, is the almost complete failure in the Anglo world to respond to this failure with an orthodoxy placing people and communities at the centre of desired outcomes. The excel spreadsheets and target driven policy development demanded by the adherents to the free market deliberately ignore social realities and differences too inconvenient to be understood by accountants.

Instead, we have continued to see conservative parties across the Anglosphere prosper under an unproven assumption that they are better at running our economies. This assumption is driven by the marketing skill possessed by the conservatives with public relation strategies overcoming actual policy development and thought.

One response from academia has been to focus on inequality. Guy Standing’s work on the Precariat shows a class of predominantly young people in precarious work. There is no job security, meaning no financial security.

Standing’s work sits alongside economists such as Piketty and Stiglitz (plus many more) in highlighting the flow on effect of trickle up economics. Oxfam’s recent publication showing that a mere 62 people own the wealth equal to half of the world’s population confirm this incredulous outcome of self-interest and greed. Inequality, it seems, is just too entrenched meaning that self-interest and greed wins out.

But, in 2015, Canada became a beacon of hope.

After years of the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, Canadians voted for the Liberal Party lead by Justin Trudeau. Trudeau shows the value of a progressive party uniting under a charismatic leader with a core message – that diversity is a strength and Canada’s common uniting feature.

Trudeau’s cabinet reflects that diversity. He has installed a “man-ban” with success, and when confronted about why he chose a cabinet with gender equality, he simply stated “because it’s 2015”.

This lead to a movement in social media in Canada – #becauseits2015 – where Canadians were able to express their pride in their new government. In a way, Canadians were feeling proud again to see their values being espoused by their leader. Rather than being driven by fear and division, the call to embrace diversity had won out.

In short, Canadians could be Canadian again.

Trudeau has increased Canada’s commitment to take on more refugees. In fact, when the first Syrian refugees to arrive in Canada under Trudeau’s leadership landed in that country, Trudeau was there to greet them at the airport.

He has also set out his desire to begin a conversation based on equity and dignity that actually incorporates, rather than patronises, First Nations people. No one can dispute that Canada has a long way to go in this conversation, but Trudeau has expressed its central importance to his Prime Ministership.

For me, these are the issues that we want people to lead on. Leadership is about brave, but tough, decisions. We need bravery on long term decisions that are important for our children, our health, our education, our economy, our environment, and our actual lives. It is not easy, but that is what real leadership demands.

But, hey, we’re pretty relaxed about all of that, aren’t we? As long as we have a new flag and Max Key posts something on Instagram, then why bother actually looking at all of that hard stuff? I mean, we’re just too small to matter anyway, right?

Globalisation does not mean an absence of decision making. We still need brave leaders in this country and, in my view, we deserve them.

Currently, the World Economic Forum meeting is taking place in the Swiss alps. This annual march to Davos brings together individuals across the public and private sectors where these privileged few get to discuss the issues that affect all of us.

According to The Guardian, last year’s delegate list of 3,000 participants was 83% male with 64% coming from North America and Europe, highlighting the demographics of the financial elite. This lack of diversity in 2016 is beyond disappointing, but predictable.

This year’s Forum agenda has been focused around the so-called “Fourth Industrial Revolution”, being the disruptive nature of digital technology. The founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, writes:

“The Fourth Industrial Revolution has the potential to empower individuals and communities, as it creates new opportunities for economic, social, and personal development. But it also could lead to the marginalization of some groups, exacerbate inequality, create new security risks, and undermine human relationships.”

Schwab speaks to the inherent tension that disruptive technology provides for humanity – it can both liberate and marginalise our communities. More jobs will become automated creating more insecurity for more people, yet the technology itself will create more opportunities too.

This is true in terms of our working lives, but also are tangible daily existence: how we interact with each other, how we shop, how we eat…our lives will change markedly in the next 20 years. Just thinking about these potential changes in technology is extremely exciting.

The risks, though, are already evident today. The narrowing of privacy is all too clear as the State becomes empowered by the technology to control information. This is happening right now, essentially without any public discussion about how much power we actually want governments to have. The governments are simply taking it, as the technology allows it.

So, the discussion around the Fourth Industrial Revolution is no doubt a critical one, making it even more disappointing to see the lack of diversity at the Forum and its inaccessibility to most of the planet on whose behalf the Forum claims to meet.

Presumably, though, the coffee chats at Davos between the bankers and the politicians will be less about disruption, and more about recent concerns with the global economy.

The global economic news in 2016 is almost all negative. China’s growth is slowing down with its slowest rate of expansion in 25 years. Countries and businesses who placed faith in China’s growth must be wobbling at the knees. The markets are taking a hit, with some even predicting that this could be a repeat of the bad old days in 2008 with the global financial crisis.

It has only been eight years since that ultimate example of the failure of unregulated markets. Yet, and despite that colossal failure, the economic orthodoxy of neo-liberalism has become even more entrenched with trickle up economics leading to our own gilded age. Oxfam has just announced that a mere 62 individuals hold as much wealth as the poorest half of the world’s population. Sixty two individuals holding the same as 3.6 billion.

During that time, conservative parties in the Anglo world have succeeded in selling a vision of conservatives as being better at running the global economy. The proof is not in the pudding as corporate losses are socialised while public profits are privatised, but the public relations strategy of these conservatives has succeeded over evidence based policy development. One liners trump considered policy, and this is particularly so in New Zealand.

In part, this dominance of conservatism is also due to the failure of progressive parties across the Anglo world to develop genuine responses to the current economic orthodoxy.

In this country, Labour’s “Future of Work” commission lead by Grant Robertson appears to be an attempt to come up with genuine responses. Through its lifespan it will seek to address some of the same issues being discussed at Davos around the impact of technology.

This is, after all, the ultimate question for so-called “left” or “progressive” political parties as we head further into the 21st Century. With employment becoming more and more precarious in our casualised labour market, how can “work” be characterised in a way that empowers rather than oppresses? The disruptive nature of technology provides both questions and answers in this discussion.

But, talk is affordable and the challenge will be for Labour to turn the Future of Work commission into a clear and accessible vision of an exciting New Zealand. There needs to be a tangible result from the commission. That economic and social vision, one of empowerment, inclusiveness and valuing diversity, can begin to challenge the current economic orthodoxy provided it is accessible to and understood by the public.

But, the process itself is a positive one. These are the crucial discussions that we need to have, and it should not be left to the financial elite to have them. The rest of us have a role too and the Future of Work commission seems to be an attempt to create that space.

Many of you will have seen the horrible news that Saudi Arabia is intending to go ahead with the planned crucifixion and execution of Ali Mohamed al-Nimr who was arrested when he was a child.

Taken from the UN News site, and from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights:

“…Mr. al-Nimr, then a high school student, was arrested in 2012 when he was 17 by the Saudi authorities for his reported participation in ‘Arab Spring’ protests in Qatif, Eastern Province. The Specialized Criminal Court in May 2015 sentenced him to death for joining a criminal group and attacking police officers. He was reportedly subjected to torture and ill treatment by the General Investigation Directorate which forced him to confess the charges against him.

[…] Mr. al-Nimr’s appeal made by his lawyer was heard without prior notification and the proceedings fell short of international standards.

“Mr. al-Nimr did not receive a fair trial and his lawyer was not allowed to properly assist him and was prevented from accessing the case file. International law, accepted as binding by Saudi Arabia, provides that capital punishment may only be imposed following trials that comply with the most stringent requirements of fair trial and due process, or could otherwise be considered an arbitrary execution,” said the [Special Rapporteur] experts.

[…]

Two other individuals are at risk of an imminent execution after being arrested for their participation in Qatif when they were children. “

This is abhorrent. I call on the New Zealand Government to formally protest. We should call in the Saudi Consular General and demand that this young man’s life be spared. He should be allowed access to a free and impartial hearing.

There are moments when it is worth saying something. This is a moment, Minister McCully.

At no time since the Second World War has the world seen such huge human displacement. Human misery is palpable, and the most appropriate emotion is one of empathy. The pictures we have seen lately surely cause all of us to feel a sense of loss for our fellow human beings placed in such an intolerable predicament.

Yet, to our government, the ones who represent us – our ethos and what we stand for as a nation – there is nothing to see here. Nothing can be done.

There is no refugee crisis – at least, there isn’t one that we have to deal with. (lucky us)

This absence of compassion reflects poorly on us all. Is this the point we have reached? Are we so immune to human tragedy that we see no benefit in acting unless there is a financial benefit? Are we a country run purely on spreadsheets and statistics? What happened to principle?

This intellectual vacuum driven by focus group politics and an addiction to power does nothing for the development of our country. We are poorer for it, and not in spreadsheet terms, but in pure terms of humanity.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an outcome of the pain and human cost of the Second World War. In 1948 the infant General Assembly of the United Nations passed this Declaration of the rights we deemed to be universal, acknowledging the importance for all, all of us, to have access to these rights. At Article 14, the Declaration speaks to the right to claim asylum.

By 1951, a group of nations had come together to draft and complete the Refugee Convention. Now over 60 years old, this document is truly one of the Twentieth Century’s most wonderful achievements. It has literally and directly led to the protection of millions and millions of people. It is our greatest human rights remedy.

The preamble to the Refugee Convention speaks to the importance of “burden sharing”. While we baulk at the use of the term “burden” to describe human suffereing, it is a term of its time having been drafted in 1951. Regardless, the underlying principle remains – that “developed” countries acknowledge that most refugees will be absorbed within the “developing” world, and for this reason developed states should pursue policies to alleviate that responsibility.

For us, a key way we do that is through our annual refugee quota. Stuck at 750 now for thirty years, our intransigence shows an unwillingness to contribute and a presumption of no-responsibility. New Zealanders cannot be content with this inertia.

However, the prime minister’s reliance on procedure (that there will be a review of the quota forthcoming) reveals a dismissive arrogance illustrative of an entire lack of empathy. There is nothing – absolutely nothing – to prevent the government making a decision today to increase the quota.

The only obstacle is unwillingness.

Our unwillingness is compounded by our hypocrisy. The government’s ill-advised decision to send troops to Iraq was premised on doing our bit. Yet, the same principle is not applied here.

Further, our position on the Security Council is vacuous unless driven by principle and evidenced by our commitments. Absent those commitments, and absent those principles, we are just filling in time wasting a seat designed for impact, but diluted by political cowardice.

It is time to do our bit. Rather than the investment on our relentless pursuit of free trade (terms and conditions apply), or the $26 million spent on a flag vanity project more about legacy than identity, it is time to show leadership among nations and reflect our unearned self-image.

There are two tangible actions we can employ today – double the refugee quota, and actually use that Lazy Boy seat at the Security Council.

In the global west – whatever that means – we laud our various forms of government as being democratic.

We pat ourselves on our figurative backs for having a system we claim to be fully representative of our societies. Inclusive decision-making led by an informed body citizenry with representatives driven by the pure reward of public service.

By the people, for the people.

But, such superficial gloss does a disservice to our reality. More and more we see today examples of the true nature of our western systems in denying collective decision-making.

Trickle up politics.

A clear example of this will be the impact of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA). Yes, the recent round of talks in Hawaii reached an impasse, but don’t count on the TPPA dying out just yet. There is too much invested in this agreement by the economic elites to let it simply just fall away.

The TPPA is supposed to represent a “free trade” agreement. The inherent problem with “free trade” is that it really isn’t “free”. Traditionally, countries with greater leverage continue to insist on free access to other markets while maintaining a protectionist stance to their own market. The TPPA is no different and the protracted length of negotiations must surely be a testament to this.

Whispers that our dairy farmers will not gain significantly greater access to US or Japanese markets illustrate that this is far from any plain meaning of the term “free trade”. The claimed windfall to our economy may not be so great, especially given the concerns around the lack of diversity in our economy.

But, this agreement is more than just the inequity of “free trade”. Consistent with that theme of inequity, it is also about the further impact it will have on our ability to make our own decisions.

In short, the TPPA is being used as a run around to prevent states having the ability to regulate in the interests of the people against corporate interests.

The TPPA represents hegemony in its pure form. But, it is able to do so without any genuine scrutiny – there is no robust public debate, media analysis is thin and relatively uncritical, while any parliamentary oversight will be on the other side of the Rubicon.

A key component of this oppressive exertion of hegemonic power by the financial elites is that the text of the TPPA remains hidden from view. Well, as I have often heard from one proponent of the TPPA (but in another context), if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

Clearly, they have a lot to hide with “transparency” being a term conveniently applied to others.

We already know about the impact the TPPA will have on Pharmac. The pharmaceutical companies want you to pay more for your medicines. They won’t allow governments to set up market mechanisms to produce better prices for consumers, and they sure won’t allow generic substitutes into the market at significantly lower cost.

This is a big problem for us. It is an even bigger problem for other countries also part of the TPPA whose people need access to cheaper medicine. Shouldn’t other countries have the benefit of a similar mechanism to Pharmac?

To me, it is utterly crazy that the pharmaceutical companies are so easily able to achieve the beginning of global regulation geared in their interests through the backdoor like this.

This is not an engaged decision-making process. The pharmaceutical companies, through the political access their financial power guarantees, are gaming the system leading to decisions that are ultimately against the interests of the consumer.

The consumers, meanwhile, have no one fighting in their corner. The fix is in.

Similarly, the investor state dispute resolution system allows corporations to ultimately dictate internal state policy. This is entirely absent any collective decision-making process normally reflected within in a democracy and is singularly only in the interests of corporations.

Traditionally, the financial elite has been against the encroachment of international law into domestic decision-making. From one perspective, this is because that law has primarily been about improving access to individual human rights.

But, more recently, including items such as the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement with extensions around copyright law), the financial elites have worked out how these multi-lateral agreements can work in their interests. They have worked out how to use these agreements as a backdoor to countries, without having to confront any genuine scrutiny knowing that most countries have very weak parliamentary oversight.

The result? Our democracy is diluted. But, hey, at the end of the day, what is real democracy anyway?

The international stage has recently highlighted the uneven playing field of debt. Different folks get different strokes. Moral indignation is hurled at only a select group, yet other reckless behaviour merely gets forgiven and forgotten.

Business as usual, depending on the stripe of your suit.

But, as we watch the European project implode from within, it got me thinking about whether the same hypocrisy exists in New Zealand.

It does.

Debt means different things to different people, and moral indignation is no less embraced in our society. Indeed, it is a drug to many, justifying their own excess in order to blame others without any acknowledgement of the clear hypocrisy inherent in this differential treatment.

Back in Europe, the culpability with Greece lies in many quarters. There is absolutely no doubt that a significant part of that culpability falls to successive Greek governments. The practice of relying on significant borrowings to make up for a shortfall in tax revenue was only destined for failure. It’s a zero sum game.

Of course, other governments also borrow to cover for a shortfall in tax revenues. Some even offer tax cuts and then pay for those tax cuts through borrowing.

The clear difference with Greece, though, was the spectacular failure to collect tax. Greece has the highest percentage of potential value-added tax that is not collected in the EU – 32.7% according to the European Commission via Steven Rattner in the New York Times.

But, this staggering shortfall was clear to everyone and anyone who bothered to look. The evidence was always there. Despite this massive failure, the banks were willing to lend to Greece which seems to me as another zero-sum game. As I’ve argued before, the banks were willing to do this knowing that ultimately they would be bailed out. There is no better debtor than a sovereign state, especially when the IMF is ready and willing to be the knight in shining armour.

Yet, there is nothing that we are seeing in Europe to dis-incentivise a repeat of this behaviour. The banks need not moderate their recklessness in making these lending decisions. Their bonuses aren’t going anywhere. The bankers win again.

Indeed, since the global financial crisis we have seen trillions of dollars in bank bailouts. Greece, meanwhile, owes US$370 billion, a mere fraction of what has been handed over to some banks. But, it is to the people of Greece that the political and financial elite reserve their moral disapproval and outrage.

This new arrangement reached with the EU ties Greeks down to years of continued economic hardship without the debt relief previously provided to the people of Germany, including from the then Greek government. Greece’s recently resigned Minister of Finance, Yanis Varoufakis, has called this arrangement “fiscal waterboarding”. It is hard not to see the “virtues” of austerity as anything but torture and the people of Greece clearly agree.

The hypocrisy is evident on many levels, yet the financial elite remain immune from any genuine critique of their own actions. Fortune favours the well-connected, or at least the well-inherited.

Meanwhile, it seems to me that similar elements of this hypocrisy exist in Aotearoa.

A clear theme running through the report is how we treat individuals accused of relationship fraud, and particularly women. Based on an outdated concept of “relationship”, these women are labeled with the term “benefit cheat”, incur a debt that must be repaid with no tangible way to repay it (where are the jobs?), then become incarcerated often due to the fact that they cannot repay the debt, and then return to society post-incarceration where the debt remains.

A fundamental issue here is the lack of any tangible gender analysis in the operation of our criminal law coupled with the impact on children while incarcerated. How is this in the best interests in the child? This enforced separation is plainly contrary to our obligations to act in the child’s best interests under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Greek “outcome” is symptomatic of a broken economic ideology. Underlying that ideology is an expectation that private losses flowing from reckless activity will be ultimately supported by public money.

“Outcome” perhaps is too pre-emptive a word given the upcoming referendum in Greece this weekend. Greece will essentially vote on whether to remain within the European contract, or experiment, or however you choose to describe it. Greece, this home of democracy, having been forced through undemocratic means to endure austerity resulting in wiping almost 30% off its economy, is returning to democracy to seek a mandate.

Regardless of this outcome, the post global financial crisis western world has seen public bailouts following this reckless behaviour. Few people remember that the last action of the George W. Bush administration was to shepherd the largest transfer of public wealth in private hands following the unethical and immoral collatarized debt obligation tsunami brought about by the derivative market.

In Greece, derivatives were at play too with Goldman Sachs masking the debt through the cloak of clever financial instruments to lubricate membership to the EU.

Prior to this, banks in France and Germany were only too willing to loan to an equally unethical Greek government seeking to prop up the façade that was their complete absence of tax revenue. Clearly, those governments are culpable, but where is the culpability of the bankers who made the loans? Any layer of due diligence would have revealed the façade leading to any sensible institution to determine that the loans were never going to be repaid.

There is an entitlement from those who work in the financial services industry that they reap all the benefits while the risk sits with the ignorant public. Any bailout from the troika goes to the banks, while the people of Greece have just absorbed five years of austerity.

Ireland was no different. The banks made all the mistakes, but the people were the ones who absorbed the losses, the pain, and the ignominy.

And why would the folks in the financial industry feel any different? Where is the evidence for their accountability? Where have been the wave of prosecutions following the global financial crisis? It is business as usual now, the bonuses are back, and the only real losers are the public, in every sense of the word.

There is no free market when only one group gets to set the rules.

Despite the irrefutable evidence of the flaws of this economic model following the global financial crisis, this mantra of the free market inherent in neo-liberalism, it remains the economic orthodoxy. It seems that the truth can be ignored, when it is really dogma that drives the thinking trumping the evidence.

And it is this orthodoxy that continues to drive economic discussion in Aotearoa. Our lack of economic diversity and inability to truly leverage our assets leaves us lagging in creativity and future scope. We continue to favour short term advancement over longer term thinking. It is this thinking that ultimately disarms us when we should be moving beyond this flawed orthodoxy.

In truth, we face the challenge of these generations in the reality of climate change. Yet, this government prefers to remain blind in the spotlight of our future. Our intransigence only embarrasses us and leaves us behind the curve, when we should be way out in front. Imagine our potential if we truly decide to stimulate and release it.

So, this weekend we watch as Greece attempts to make sense of their modern predicament. The moral judgement will be strong, almost overpowering, and will cloud any frank assessment of the layer of factors leading to this predicament. Ultimately, lessons will not be learned, and we will limp to another crisis under this flawed, and greedy, economic orthodoxy.

Many of you will recall our prime minister’s recent scaremongering and distraction tactics when he announced that there was a “credible” threat of a boat carrying 65 asylum seekers reaching New Zealand’s shores.

Predictably, of course, the boat got nowhere near the land of the long white cloud, country of immigrants and the home of the fair go (at least the one with Kevin Milne).

At the time, the prime minster claimed that we had instigated our “processes” in how we deal with these things, while being exceptionally thin on the detail of what those processes were.

Media in Australia have since reported allegations that the Australian government paid possibly up to $30,000 for the boat to return to Indonesia. Tony Abbott has refused to directly answer the allegations and has instead focused on his administration’s so-called track record in stopping the boats.

Given this deliberate obfuscation, it is not unfair to suggest that the evidence indicates that indeed Australia has been paying people smugglers to not come further on to Australia. This raises a number of questions.

First, it questions the core of the Australian policy going back to the Howard government. That policy has been to focus on the “people smugglers” – to use criminal and security language to marginalize those on the boat seeking asylum. By focusing on the people smugglers, the glare has not been on fleeing human rights abuse, but on the criminal act of the people smugglers themselves.

Here I wish to make a quick tangential observation. Refugee status is not a beast of our immigration policy. It is a human rights remedy for human rights abuse. It is a protection mechanism, not a discretionary immigration decision. Human rights law obligates countries to protect these individuals. It is important to tailor all of the debate around refugees with this in mind.

But now there are serious questions as to whether Australia is directly paying the people smugglers. This would make Australia complicit in sustaining the market for these same criminals – the market that the politicians consistently decry. Surely this directly contradicts and undermines the entire tenancy of the policy to focus on the people smugglers?

This question of complicity is more than just one of economic language, but also directly raises the issue of criminal law. A regular citizen paying these same individuals would be subject to potential prosecution yet the Australian government seems willing to engage in this prohibited behavior under the rubric of “security”.

It also raises the question of whether this is part of the “processes” that our prime minister referred to. Is New Zealand aware of this policy of paying the people smugglers? Is there any complicity on our part – did Australia send the bill to the 9th floor? Our prime minister is currently playing ignorance, yet we deserve more transparency when our PM speaks of “processes” but will not lay these out. The concept of “security” does not demand secrecy. It demands accountable policy making.

Of course, I am being somewhat facetious on my suggestions that the bill was sent on to us. I have no reason to believe this and would hope that our country’s attempts to parrot Australia’s punitive policy on asylum seekers to not stretch so low.

These allegations highlight the ultimate absurdity of Australia’s policies on asylum seekers driven by an undertone of xenophobia and racism. Today, Australian media indicated that this policy of paying people smugglers stretches back to the Labor government, although this is denied by the Labor leader, showing that the stain of this absurdity stretches across both major parties.

This hypocrisy in Australia undermines any claim of Australia being a country where rule of law guarantees access to justice. There can be no access, when justice is completely denied.

It is an embarrassment to New Zealand that this government seeks to imitate such a misplaced policy that does nothing to contribute to a broader regional approach with protection at its core. In truth, this government exhibits no independent foreign policy. This absence of intellect harms our international reputation at a time when we should be pursuing an independent and thoughtful voice while on the Security Council.

June 20 is World Refugee Day. There are more refugees today than at any time since the Second World War. Rather than criminalise refugees and ignore the causative factors forcing people to flee, the international community needs to reframe its thinking on how to provide protection to the millions who deserve it.

But this government is not interested. Refugees don’t buy a lot of milk powder.

Tuesday morning our prime minister decided to tell a group of reporters that a “people smuggling boat” was heading on its way to our shores.

Well, it’s not a “people smuggling boat”.

It is a boat full of asylum seekers searching for protection from breaches of fundamental human rights.

As far as I can tell, this narrative has been completely unchallenged by a compliant media and jumps on an undertone of unhealthy xenophobia evident in the toxic debate in Australia.

The reporting indicates that the boat was intercepted by Australian forces and pushed back to Indonesian waters. There is limited information around the allegedly 65 people on board, but there is reporting that this included a pregnant woman.

Indeed, the information is ridiculously thin. The suggestion by the prime minister that the boat was coming to New Zealand is speculative at best, and manipulative at worst. Regardless, his comments – that we worked through our “processes” – imply that we are complicit in pushing back to Indonesian waters a group of 65 individuals including a pregnant woman and her unborn child where they will be illegal and unable to access any substantive rights.

The release of the information is clearly targeted to justify this government’s overall punitive response to refugees and to create a platform for further negative and discriminatory language in the future. The PM is keen to create a climate of fear around asylum seekers and imply they create a “threat” to New Zealand, absent any real justification for such an inflammatory and entirely disproportionate response to reality.

Let’s take a moment to consider the wording here. It is important not to confuse “smuggling” with “trafficking”. The latter is without consent and involves exploitation. Smuggling, on the other hand, is a consensual process, although it can lead to exploitation. The reality of seeking asylum is that you are forced into the most risky of measures, and these individuals can facilitate that. Indeed, Oskar Schindler was a people smuggler.

The Refugee Convention acknowledges this reality. Article 31 of the Convention states that no one shall be penalised for illegal entry. The drafters of the Convention knew that asylum seekers would be forced to take such drastic measures.

None of this justifies the actions of the smugglers. They are taking advantage of the misery of the asylum seekers. Often, they do so with scant or no regard for their safety. This is only too evident in the Mediterranean.

The reality is that it is the policies of countries like New Zealand and Australia that have created the markets for the people smugglers. With no legal way to come to our “rights regarding” countries through our strict visa regimes and carrier sanctions (fines against airlines for allowing individuals on board who do not meet our immigration criteria), individuals are forced into these other measures.

If New Zealand and Australia were serious about combatting people smuggling, then they would commit to a genuine regional solution. This would involve tangible commitments to accepting more refugees from within the region and working with countries to mitigate the circumstances creating refugees. New Zealand could also assist in other ways through providing training and logistical support – we have excellent people here working on these issues and that knowledge could be shared.

Done right, this would build further bilateral and multilateral partnerships throughout the region. This has to be in our interests.

However, it seems that this government is not interested in all of the aspects of global citizenry. We are happy to talk trade, but not protection or respect for human rights. We are on the Security Council, yet we see no real independent advocacy as promised in the lead up to our election to that body.

At the least, we need our media to challenge the narrative. By adopting the terms used by our prime minister we only play into the choice to criminalize these people fleeing human rights abuse. A more appropriate response would be to question the prime minister on our lack of a commitment to a genuine regional solution. Right now, there is a crisis with the Rohingya, yet our government has been completely silent.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/06/03/its-not-a-people-smuggling-boat/feed/6Another failure of progressive politics?https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/05/13/another-failure-of-progressive-politics/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2015/05/13/another-failure-of-progressive-politics/#commentsTue, 12 May 2015 17:48:14 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=58840
As many commentators have noted, there were significant similarities with the recent UK election to our own general election last year. Convincing victories – beyond that which had been forecasted for the most part – for the conservative side of politics with “fragmented” progressive parties unable to present a credible governing alternative to voters.

Although different in scale, the media took an adverse liking to the leader of the opposition in both elections hammering away at any mistake – real or perceived. Given the reality of commercial media today, progressive parties will struggle to ever receive a fair hearing in the media requiring different strategies to connect with the voting public.

Alongside this reality is another common factor being the ever present spin doctor element. Lynton Crosby, of Crosby Textor, was a key factor in the Conservative Party’s election strategy. In this country, we are well aware of the pernicious and negative style of politics driven by the Crosby Textor brand initially with Don Brash and then very successfully with the individual who toppled Brash for the National Party leadership.

Assisting Lynton Crosby in the UK was the American campaign expert, Jim Messina. Messina is a town in Sicily connecting the island with the mainland and it is also the name of an excellent gelato shop in Melbourne (on Smith St). But this Messina brings no warm memories for me following his efforts on this campaign. Prior to working in the UK with the Conservatives he worked on the Obama/Biden campaign. He has now announced his intention to return to the US to work on the Hilary campaign.

Personally, I wouldn’t hire him. As someone I greatly respect pointed out to me, this individual has no ethics. (It was my mother who pointed this out to me – and she did it on Mother’s Day making it even more compelling) Messina’s manipulation – because that is what spin doctoring is – of the voting public is driven by no firm political commitment nor ideology to change society for the better. It is a naked pursuit of power for power’s sake.

What we are left with, then, is a concentration of power across the Anglosphere in the conservative side of politics captured by donors. At its core, this is something I cannot comprehend (apart from the donor reference). For me, the global financial crisis in 2008 was the ultimate expression of the failure of the policies driven by conservatives. With the accompanying reality of climate change, surely the business as usual model driven by greed had been fundamentally disproven?

Yet, following this crisis it has been the conservatives that have been able to drive home the myths of the free market to convince voters that the illusive free market provides a road full of aspiration.

Following the global financial crisis, the progressive side of politics across the Anglosphere has failed to come up with a consistent and credible theme to challenge the myths of the free market.

The UK intellectual, Tariq Ali, argues that the UK Labour Party should be left to bleed. He views the result in Scotland as being particularly poignant for the Labour Party given its Scottish roots and history of strong Scottish leadership. Within the Labour Party, he sees an absence of radicalism to drive an anti-capitalist response. Indeed, he sees no tangible difference between the Labour and Conservative centrist approaches.

His despair is understandable. There are, though, strong responses we are seeing from countries outside of the Anglosphere and from parties outside of the traditional political make-up of those countries. The Syriza victory in Greece, brought on by crisis, has been fascinating to watch. Likewise, the ability of Podemos in Spain to grow from its birth to a leading polling party in just over 12 months speaks volumes to citizens wanting a political and economic ideology that is not based on the myths of the free market but on empowering citizens with social justice policies at their core.

But, to consign Labour parties across the Anglosphere to oblivion actually does nothing to strengthen progressive politics. Instead, progressive parties need to look to each other, acknowledge their differences, and draw on their strengths. The challenge is to be able to present a unified, credible, alternative source of government and one that the spin doctors fail to undermine in the eyes of swing/undecided voters.

For me, acknowledging differences is a key point. This is important both internally and with the public. The public needs to know that you will not agree on all issues, but are driven by the same common principles. There is real value in being open about your differences and the progressive parties here should not shy from this.

The challenge now is for Labour parties to re-engage with their core values and translating those values into policies that work in these modern times.

In this country, this can be achieved by placing a primacy on our communities and actually listening to their needs while developing a diverse, sustainable economy serving the entire country. It will not be easy, but the myths of the free market deserve to be exposed and our country needs to prefer equity as our true currency.

Recently we have seen some excellent work done by people looking at raising our refugee quota, and specifically to address the current crises emanating out of Syria and Iraq (and soon to be Yemen?). I encourage you to check out the campaign at Action Station building on the great work the Doing Our Bit campaign has been working on as well as the more recent Wage Peace NZ folks.

Our “refugee quota” is a maximum of up to 750 individuals each year that we will accept by way of a referral from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Our quota has not been raised since 1987.

In refugee speak, this process is called “resettlement”. It is one of the three “durable solutions” UNHCR speaks of. The other two, and more preferable, are “voluntary repatriation” and “local integration”.

There is no legal obligation to resettle refugees. The 1951 Refugee Convention – a document that has lead to the protection of millions of people – only speaks to the principle of burden sharing in its Preamble. Clearly, though, the burden of the majority of the world’s refugees rests on the developing world, so consistent with this principle some states agree to resettle the most vulnerable.

But, beyond the numbers and the technical language, why should we raise the quota? Aren’t we doing enough?

Let me tell you about Daevitha (name changed). I assisted her a couple of years ago and we were recently back in touch.

Daevitha is from Sri Lanka. Her family is from Jaffna in the north of Sri Lanka. They are Tamil. Her father and two brothers have worked in the struggle for independence from the Sinhalese majority and she believes in the cause. Daevitha is a good writer and has had some of her short stories published. She used to work as a journalist now and then.

Daevitha’s husband is a talented young man also from Jaffna and has studied abroad. He quickly rose through the ranks of the political arm of the Tamil Tigers becoming a trusted advisor to the leadership. He developed a high profile and appeared regularly in the Tamil media. They have a child together – he is now 10 years old, precocious, loves reading and playing soccer.

Following the bloody the end of the conflict, Daevitha’s husband was captured by the government troops. Daevitha’s father and brothers, though, were killed in the final military offensive launched by the government.

With thousands being forced into internment camps, Daevitha escaped to India with her son after paying a fisherman 50,000 Rupees to take her across. From India, she takes a flight to Bangkok, Thailand where she knows another Tamil woman is living. She and her son enter Thailand on a two week tourist visa.

Daevitha is told by members of the Tamil community in Bangkok to approach UNHCR. She does, and is given a piece of paper saying that she is an asylum seeker.

This paper, however, does not amount to legal status in Thailand meaning that her visa quickly expires and she is illegal in Thailand. At any time, she can be arrested and she often has to pay small bribes to local police to leave her alone. Other members of her community are detained and placed in the Immigration Detention Centre where the conditions are difficult, especially for children.

After being interviewed four times by UNHCR staff where at each interview she had to explain in detail the reasons as to why she left Sri Lanka including the retelling of traumatic events, Daevitha is told that her claim for asylum is accepted. She is now a refugee.

UNHCR considers that she has a genuine risk of facing serious harm were she to return Sri Lanka, something she always knew, but is now confirmed. Her grant of refugee status still does not make her legal in Thailand – she remains at risk of detention.

Daevitha is then interviewed again by another UNHCR staff member. This is for “resettlement purposes” and she has to once again explain why she was forced to leave Sri Lanka. She gets called back for another interview to clarify some points.

Then, finally, she is told her case has been submitted to Canada for resettlement. But, wait, now Canada wants to interview her…she waits for that interview and whether she will be able to live in a country where her status is legal and she can walk down the street without fear.

Daevitha has now been in Thailand for five years. During this time, she has been unable to work legally picking up some black market work here and there as a domestic helper. Her son has had no education save for her own attempts at home, but she knows he will get educated in Canada, if only they get accepted. Despite trying through official channels and the Red Cross, Daevitha has no word of her husband. She assumes he has been executed extra-judicially.

Daevitha, and others like her, is why we should raise our refugee quota. Resettlement will enable her and her son a clean slate in life. For her son in particular, the opportunities in front of him are endless.

I can write about increasing our “soft power” through the region, being a better player internationally, meeting our “kiwi values” through our foreign policy goals, and the need to do our bit. These are all incredibly important. But, at its heart, the refugee experience of survival and persistence is a human experience where cannot help but applaud. Where we can, the innate human and compassionate response should be to help those escaping human rights abuse. Like Daevitha and her son, they deserve a chance at safety.

Through an accident of geography New Zealand receives few asylum seekers directly. Through deliberate policies around visas and penalties against airlines or other carriers, we make it virtually impossible for individuals from refugee producing countries to obtain a visa. This leaves us as being ranked number 87 in the world for our refugee hosting per capita – hardly something to be proud of and patent evidence that we are not doing enough.

So, it is time to increase our quota. To help resettle more individuals who have already gone through a long and robust process proving that they are in need of protection.

Specifically, I would target more places from South East Asia – refugees who are currently in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia. I would then leave an amount every year for emergency situations, like Syria.

All this takes is leadership. This isn’t a partisan issue. It is a human issue, and there is no political reason to leave our quota so stranded.

And, you want to know the latest with Daevitha? Well, looks like she and her son will be trying maple syrup pretty darn soon, eh…and that is the beauty of refugee protection.

Our government’s deployment of troops to Iraq illustrates a lack of analysis on the utility of such a deployment to the actual people of that country. It does nothing to directly address the causes of why predominantly young men flock to seek the illusive promises of the Islamic State.

In truth, this deployment is a missed opportunity to do good – to actually have a strategic impact and to signal the depth of our independent foreign policy to the world worthy of our campaign for a seat on the Security Council.

New Zealand is in a position to employ a more creative use of our skills and profit off our limited geopolitical relevance. If only we had a government willing to be creative. If only we had a government believing and acting on the rhetoric that we have an independent foreign policy.

Specifically, there are three immediate areas where I can see New Zealand having a more positive impact in this conflict. They are:

Using our “independent” voice on the Security Council

Targeted nation building

Increasing our refugee resettlement quota

We campaigned on being a small, independent nation when we ran for the Security Council. We campaigned on being in favour of a strong multi-lateral rules based approach to international law. We have good people at our UN mission in New York working hard to live up to those commitments.

If given the leash, there is considerable work those good people can do consistent with those objectives. Our unique role can be behind the scenes in bringing different players together. Using our position of relative unimportance, we can build those bridges using mutual interests and narrowing down points of distance.

Primarily, this will include isolating Islamic State targeting those who finance or allow the group to be economically self-sustaining. The isolation strategy is better than bringing western boots on the ground playing into Islamic State’s “crusader” propaganda.

If we are going to be on the Security Council, then let’s make it worth it. Let’s do something worthwhile and not just make up the numbers.

Iraq is a country stained by decades of conflict and uncertainty. The 80s saw the Iran-Iraq conflict with incredible loss of life as the west supported a mighty Saddam against the Persian threat. Then the first Gulf War occurred quickly followed by punishing sanctions crippling the civilian population. It was not long until the illegal invasion of George W. Bush and Tony Blair leading to over a million deaths fermenting the sectarian tensions directly creating the reality of modern Iraq.

Is it any wonder that Iraq is quite simply devastated? As a country, its human capital has been stripped away bare crawling desperately from one crisis to another.

It is in this context that New Zealand can contribute through targeted aid and development. To date we have provided aid to the region, but this needs to be stepped up to show a real commitment. Genuine nation building – more than superficial PR driven hearts and minds – involves institution strengthening and developing human capacity. This is consistent with our supposed commitment to strong rule of law and accountability while also playing a genuinely positive role in our foreign affairs.

New Zealand’s contribution can be in a number of ways. We can provide law enforcement and rule of law training along with other areas where our excellent civil servants can assist. We can work with UN agencies, NGOs and other like-minded states to develop sustainable programmes and provide funding for programme delivery where our citizens are not required on the ground.

Imagine the impact the funds committed to our military deployment could have in these targeted programmes where we are actually developing human capacity to create a genuine civil society?

In going further, our universities could provide scholarship opportunities in key areas such as medicine, education, engineering, and science showing our commitment to make a positive contribution in directly developing that capacity. There are other areas where we can contribute if we think creatively driven by a genuine desire to assist, rather than frozen in our current reactive state anchored in fear.

Finally, our refugee resettlement quota of 750 per annum sees us ranked 87th in the world per capita for hosting refugees. The quota has not risen in some 28 years and there are years when we often do not meet the quota.

The good folks at Action Station are campaigning to increase our quota. Click on the link to read about their campaign and sign on – if you have doubts, read their FAQs page, including issues around affordability. There is a similar campaign called Wage Peace NZ showing the growing acknowledgement that we can and should increase our quota.

These campaigns build on the excellent work over the last few years of Murdoch Stephens at Doing Our Bit. Murdoch, motivated by his own time in the region meeting and photographing refugees, has worked tirelessly to raise this issue with our politicians. His efforts, and other campaigners, are laudable.

The lack of response to date to increase our refugee quota by our politicians is a disgrace and speaks poorly to our humanitarian commitment. Direct action on this issue is easy, immediate, and better reflects the true nature of New Zealanders.

In theory, there is nothing stopping the government moving on all three areas now. This can be in addition to our military option and complement that role. This does not require bravery – it is just smart and constructive foreign policy and is ultimately more consistent with our values as New Zealanders.

One of the platforms on which we ran for a seat at the UN Security Council was that we are an independent nation unbeholden to others. Coupled with this embrace of our own autonomy was our belief in the rules based approach to multilateral affairs.

Recent events, however, have shown that political pragmatism trumps all when it comes to the approach of Aotearoa under this government. Of course, as citizens, we did not need the evidence of this being all too familiar with the flip flopping approach of our Cabinet dependent on David Farrar’s latest focus group.

But, our lack of independence is now all too clear to those who voted for our position as a Security Council temporary member. Further, we have abandoned diplomacy and a cross-sector long term approach to resolving the issue of ISIS in favour of a short term aggressive strategy employed by our big brother ally. (I use the term “ISIS” here, but for no deliberate reason).

This strategy replicates recent efforts prioritising the use of force over targeted law enforcement and development strategies questioning the effectiveness of any current role suggested for the New Zealand military. We have no clear sense in New Zealand as to what would be the goals of any deployment and how success would be evaluated.

Arguably, this overall approach from the US only further compounds the conditions that brought about the creation and growth of ISIS driving further sectarianism and hatred of the West. Clearly, it is in ISIS’s interests to have western boots on the ground and to be seen as fighting the invading crusaders with the use of force approach playing into this.

In truth, I have been personally very torn over what our response to ISIS should be. Unlike others, I am not immediately opposed to New Zealand having a military role in confronting this organisation. If there is a tangible and worthwhile role for us to play appropriately using our skills, then I believe in a deployment. I believe that our military has the skills and the individuals able to make a positive contribution.

But, if we are going to place our military in a conflict zone, we need to be sure why they are there and what they can achieve. The risk to their safety has to be worth it. This is more than just a simple political calculation.

Although impossible now, I would be far more comfortable for New Zealand to take part in a military operation authorised by the Security Council under its mandate to deal with international peace and security. I would prefer our government committing to an approach that supports a rules based multilateral approach over and above hitching our wagon to one large country’s foreign policy. This is, after all, part of the platform we sold ourselves as adhering to when we ran for the Security Council.

Remember, ISIS has a transnational impact with its operations being across borders. This is not just about Iraq. ISIS is clearly active in Syria and now it would seem Libya too following the abhorrent murder of the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians. From reading reports, my understanding is that there are smaller ISIS elements in other countries as well.

Given that we are talking about a non-state actor that is impacting international peace and security across borders, isn’t this exactly where the Security Council can provide leadership and promote collective action? Shouldn’t we – given our strong commitment to a multi-lateral rules based approach – be promoting this avenue? Especially now that we are at the table?

This is particularly so if we are to see this as humanitarian intervention under the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine. This doctrine is not an agreed upon rule at international law and its development is dependent on genuine consent at the international level, not selective choices of western governments. To suggest that ISIS triggers an obligation in response under R2P takes us no further in actually developing and promoting that doctrine to a point of law absent international agreement.

Further undermining the rule of law in my view is the approach of the Obama administration. Only now, some six months after commencing operations, has the administration gone to Congress seeking a war powers resolution.

In seeking this resolution, the President maintains that he already has the power to conduct the current conflict under the Constitution. This broadly contradicts his statements when running for office in 2008 and I can only presume that he is interpreting an imminent threat to the United States. To me, that interpretation is thin. Further, the terms of the resolution itself are vague providing no territorial limit for a period of up to three years.

This lack of a territorial limit simply undermines the sovereignty of surrounding countries. We have seen this with the targeting of Al Qaeda suspects in countries that have not consented to US operations. The theatre of war expands at the whim of analysts intercepting communications and is undertaken by soldiers using a joystick and a video screen.

This concerns me as a precedent for future conflict. We – as in New Zealanders – might be comfortable when the US does this now, but what if Russia or China choose to operate in a similar theatre? The Security Council is the appropriate avenue for developing the laws around “use of force”, not unilateral decision-making. Quashing the rule of law opens the door too open for abuse, and New Zealand is only complicit.

Clearly, though, the US does not want any Security Council involvement. The US does not want to operate under a separate mandate and wants to run this war on its own terms.

Further, we can presume that Russia (with its veto power) would attempt to use this to create leverage for the US to reduce current sanctions surrounding the conflict in the Ukraine. Again, this highlights the significant flaws in the Security Council. Just this week, however, we have seen Russia lead a resolution at the Security Council on targeting financing for ISIS showing there is common ground for action.

To ensure that the Security Council is not needed and to remain legitimate, the Iraqi government has invited us to join. The person presenting the invitation, Mr Al Jaafari, of course failed to mention his own role in furthering the sectarian divisions in post-Saddam Iraq. His invitation seems erringly familiar to one received from South Vietnam and it also reminds me of when President Karzai invited the UK to provide assistance in Afghanistan after signing a letter drafted by the UK.

In sum, then, we are committing to a conflict that undermines both the rule of law and our own commitments when we ran for the Security Council. We are committing to a conflict that has no clear exit strategy, does not target the specific conditions that brought about ISIS in the first place, and does nothing to deal with the long term economic problems across the Middle East and North Africa leading young men to go and fight.

I was in Peshawar last week. It is a vibrant city with a real energy to it. It is my favourite place to be in Pakistan.

You feel the energy as you drive around the city. I am in an armoured car, sometimes with an armed escort in front. Initially you feel nervous that this just brings additional attention to you, but after a while you realise that the locals just take it in their stride. They’ve seen it all before – you’re just someone taking up more space on the road. Yet another foreigner – privileged and arrogant, unaware of the real Pakistan. Of course, they are right. But, feeling more relaxed that I have taken this ride now so many times, last week I sat back in the car to take in the city around me – the vitality, the humanity, and the beauty of it all.

This bridge between South and Central Asia has seen so much over the years. Locals still talk of when Alexander the Great came through and point to people with blue/green eyes with a slight Macedonian tinge to the complexion. I played cricket at our office with a colleague called “Iskender” who even claimed direct lineage. He wasn’t that good at cricket, so I decided not to believe him.

Winter has just joined this region of the world and the style for Pashtun men here is to wear a blanket wrapped around the shoulders draped around the torso, sometimes up around the head. There is something strangely alluring about the look. Being wrapped up all tight in a blanket, like an infant. Secure. Confident. Maybe even unafraid.

Like that brash confidence, Peshawar’s striking symbol is a huge military fort. You cannot miss it on a visit to Peshawar. Driving along the main road through the town it rears up into dominance – a huge, overbearing monument to our specie’s incestuous relationship with violence. The building looks like how you imagine a fort to be, with strong brown walls infused with a reddish tinge, implying the blood spilled to defend or “liberate” this city (the victors get to choose the verb, sometimes as they stand on an aircraft carrier with a large banner behind).

The fort is called “Bala Hissar”. References to fortification being in this particular spot go back over a thousand years. Kings and emperors have used the fort to launch campaigns and defend territories. The British added their own flavour, building typically imperious huge outer walls. Today, the fort houses the Frontier Corps for the Pakistan army with large nationalistic flags waving in the wind surrounded by even larger anti-aircraft guns rooted to the ground.

The fort reminds me of two things. First, the constant presence of the military in this region and the accompanying feeling of a sense of insecurity that is always with you in Peshawar. Second, that the government really does see the area beyond Peshawar as a “frontier”. This is the wild west, where wild things happen.

Despite this area’s apparent inter-dependence with violence, the horrendous and vile attack this week in Peshawar does not sit comfortably with this city. It is not the way things are done here – children are the last to be condemned. As news of the attack spread, incomprehension turned to pure sorrow. Anger certainly was evident, but what I really saw and heard was pain. Colleagues and friends dumbfounded by how this can happen.

Today as I write this, a day after the attack, Pakistanis have united in their pain. Vigils are being held, marches in support of the families so unfairly bearing the brunt of this tragedy, and with a new army – an army of counsellors and volunteers – descending on Peshawar to offer only support, not retribution. The people are united in their grief. United in their sorrow. And united in calling for justice, not just for this attack, but for the people of Pakistan every day.

In one day I have heard and read many theories about why this attack happened. The news channels will speak to anyone willing to offer a theory with speculation being a new global pastime. From my friends here, it is clear that it has been a retaliation for the recent offensive in Waziristan, while some say it goes back to the offensive in Swat a few years back, and others talk about how you one day train freedom fighters and the next day call them terrorists.

It is not for me to pontificate on what Pakistan should do or why this happened. I have been here less than a year – I know nothing. To do so only serves to enforce my self-description of being privileged and arrogant meaning I join the ranks of speculators.

No, now is the time to just listen to my Pakistani friends and colleagues. To have empathy, and to try to understand their sorrow. This is their country.

So, I join in sharing the grief of the people of Pakistan. I grieve even more for the people of Peshawar – this city that I love and wish so much to explore. This incredible, energetic, and enthralling city. But, the division and egos of men make it too unsafe, sadly even now for the children.

I do not have much longer in Pakistan, but I will leave with the fondest of memories of Peshawar. The violence of the deranged cannot undermine my image of a fascinating city and its people. I look forward to the day I can return and celebrate the freedom the people there deserve, and that I tend to take for granted.

As I write this (on 24 October) it is international UN Day. Of course, you all knew that already, right?

Well, the day celebrates the entry into force of the UN Charter in 1945. With the ratification of this founding document by the majority of its signatories, including the five permanent members (P5) of the Security Council, the United Nations officially came into being. Currently, there are 193 member states of the United Nations (that’s a good pub quiz question).

The UN Charter speaks of the “purposes and principles of the United Nations”. Focused around the promotion of international peace and security, it also talks of the sovereign equality of nations and for encouraging the respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Chapter V of the Charter establishes the Security Council, including the P5 members: China, Russia, France, the US, and the UK. Chapter VII of the Charter provides that the Security Council, but only when acting under that Chapter, passes a resolution it is binding on states as a matter of international law.

It is this specific power that distinguishes the Security Council from the General Assembly. The Security Council is ultimately responsible for international peace and security and has the power to make binding resolutions. General Assembly resolutions, however, do not have the same power lacking any binding effect.

The Charter also describes the election of non-permanent members of the Security Council for the period of two years. Following the recent election, that now includes us, for the first time since the early-mid 1990s. So, we are back at the grown ups table!

But, we all know that things are not so rosey. The UN does not operate as a functioning example of transnational democracy. Rather, there are significant hurdles to representative decision-making dominated by old fashioned power politics. Many people rightly question the effectiveness of the UN today.

Pillay’s accusation centred on the security council’s inability to pass a resolution. In September, France proposed changing the process so that in the case of “mass crimes” the five permanent members do not have the power of veto. Britain’s UN ambassador supported the change and so did other representatives, but Russia, China and the United States stayed silent. The US is also guilty of frequently falling to pay its UN member fees.”

The discussion takes part in the comments section of the article. If you are interested, it is worth following, but it does require a baseline knowledge around some of the key UN agencies and operations.

The failures of the UN and the Security Council are all too evident. We live in a world full of conflict – there is a distinct lack of international peace and security.

More, it would be naïve (if not negligent) to ignore this state of affairs is contributed to significantly by the P5 members of the Security Council. The power of the veto is an anachronistic tool directly leading to the “international paralysis” Navi Pillay refers to above and quoted by The Guardian.

Recent behaviour of Russia speaks volumes to this, but Russia is not the only one to blame. Each P5 country uses the power of the veto in favour of its own interests over and above actually maintaining international peace and security. This is no surprise and the power given to the P5 would always be used in this way.

The P5 members themselves illustrate a regional imbalance with far too heavy an influence on Europe, a hangover from a western enforced view of global power. Representation on the Security Council is far from equitable, and does not truly reflect an empowering international representation.

Despite the failings of the UN, I supported our campaign for a seat on the Security Council. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) – in spite of a micro-managing and responsibility averse Minister – put together an excellent campaign leading to our appointment. They should be applauded for a job well done.

The main reason for my support is that I believe in the role of strong transnational organisations in the development of human rights. The UN has been the platform for significant advances in the international human rights law framework. That framework has been used by advocates across the globe, including myself, to argue for increased protection of marginalised groups.

I also try to remember that the UN is actually a very young exercise in terms of human history and international cooperation. Yes, there are significant issues and concerns, but these are to be learned from, not the basis for rejecting the project entirely. The imperfections will no doubt remain, but I see the UN as a work in progress, one where reform is necessary and inevitable.

So, yes, I was supportive of our attempt to be at the grown ups table. But, when it happened, I felt totally deflated.

We campaigned on a platform of being a small, independent nation. Unafraid to speak up, represent other small nations too, and not be influenced by these power games. We also campaigned on a platform of reform.

The unfortunate thing is that I see no evidence of this government being able to meet those commitments.

All the evidence points distinctly to a foreign policy completely lacking in independence. Even when John Key is acting in his capacity as Prime Minister, his speeches could easily be written in Washington DC or Canberra (well, I guess a lot of them are written in Canberra – Crosby Textor styles).

Ultimately, independence and bravery are not hallmarks of this government.

I sincerely hope that I am wrong. I genuinely hope that the good people at MFAT manage to present in New York a strong, independent Aotearoa. I know that they will work tirelessly behind the scenes to do so, trying to link objectives in support of those commitments we made when campaigning. I really hope that we see tangible progress on reform of the Security Council. I hope we can look back on our two years with pride.

But, the odds are long at the TAB on all of that. Shorter odds are on us toeing the line, McCully making some sort of embarrassing speech, and the Security Council continuing to compound our “collective failure”.

Up until very recently and the suspicious Hager sweep, the talk has been all about the failed Labour Party. We were bombarded with a media obsession on Labour’s in-fighting and blood letting.

The analysis, though, was primarily personality driven. It focused on the ability to work with certain factions within the caucus. There was no real robust assessment of policy, direction or values. The blood letting at times seemed to see the media as the leeches.

The term “Orwellian” was even thrown around (albeit borrowed from a disgruntled Labour Party member), despite the term more aptly applying to our increasing security state and the additional steps being taken by this government to bring you under its control. Analysis of that Orwellian construct remains paper thin, but perhaps is too complex for our media to thoroughly engage with.

The critique of Labour is, of course, not wrong. There are significant issues for the Party to face and confront. Some of us might actually see this as a good thing. The Labour Party has a moment now to confront its direction and whether it deserves the title reflective of the traditional labour movement in this time of the growing precariat.

Out of crisis comes opportunity – the ability to re-orient the Labour Party around progressive values. These values exist explicitly in the Policy Platform, yet have been marginalised by personal ambition cloaked in feigned Party loyalty unwilling to abandon the misguided religion of neo-liberalism. So, rather than voyeuristically claim the decline of the Party, perhaps this should be celebrated as a re-birth and a reckoning towards a more united, cohesive movement.

Let’s not forget that National faced its own bottom of the barrel moment. In response, National went to the right with Don Brash nearly pulling off victory. Building on that, John Key’s first move as leader of the National Party was to firmly entrench his leadership with the Crosby Textor spin doctors. The result? The Dirty Politics that we have seen exposed in all its despicable glory.

So, I prefer to see this as an opportunity. As the chance to build a genuine movement grounded in equity, compassion, ethics (in direct contrast to Dirty Politics) while promoting the financial and social wealth of all New Zealanders. I guess it is up to Labour as to whether it wants to take this moment and build something stronger, more compelling, and ultimately more reflective of our collective values.

But, the progressive movement in Aotearoa is far more than one Party. It is more than the Greens, or IMP, or any other political party. Pulling back the layers, it is actually not about political parties. In truth, it is about civil society and New Zealanders being engaged in our country, seeking out accountability for the use of power in which we endow our representatives.

Make no mistake, we have our work cut out for us. The election result, rather than perceive it as a depressing reality of the acceptance of inequality in our society, is more properly characterised as a call to arms. The “cause” is now more urgent than before. The goal, a society built on ethics, equity and opportunity, remains. It is up to you to take it on.

Already we are seeing signs of a regressive agenda. The Resource Management Act is under attack, but that attack is not driven by our housing crisis, rather motivated by excel spreadsheets. Our genuine housing problems are often talked about, but the solutions coming from Wellington elusive.

Beneficiaries remain a constant target – not only with the removal of social security but with significant access to justice issues. Child poverty persists as a stain on our country and while the PM seems to now acknowledge it, we are yet to see any tangible steps to address it.

Meanwhile, our environment continues to suffer at the hands of the current short-term thinking. It is embarrassing that in a country such as our’s, with such a heavy reliance on our primary industries, at how cavalier our attitude is towards our greatest resource. Given our size, I really see in this area the opportunities for us to heavily invest in green jobs and technology to be the niche developer for the world.

Education? The conservative hatred of teachers knows no bounds.

Key’s flagging of a major speech on counter terrorism reveals a proven strategy to chip away at our civil liberties. While chilling in this direct attack on our individual freedoms, it is equally disappointing in its lack of originality directly aping our fellow Five Eye partners. I would at least have expected something more creative, but perhaps the PM’s office is struggling now with the departure of that creative soul, Jason Ede.

In all seriousness, though, this use of terrorism to justify the further narrowing of our private space is of genuine concern. The term “national security” must be viewed critically. It cannot be simply pulled out to suit the agenda of the powerful. The stated policy goal must be in the legitimate best interests of the public, and the steps to address it must be the least invasive possible. This essential proportionality exercise must be part of the discussion, but instead we will see inflammatory language focused on the barbaric actions of the so-called Islamic State, rather than a focused discussion on the real dangers to this country and the legitimate steps to address any danger. The cloak of terrorism to reduce our liberties will loom large throughout this term.

In sum, then, the progressive movement needs more members. It is up to us to join together in movements, through our communities and our formal civil society organisations to champion the values we espouse. Action Station is an exciting example of Kiwis coming together to push for a fairer society. The courts can play a role and I would like to see more government decisions held accountable through litigation. Using the law as a tool for social change is powerful. It’s why I went to law school.

Rally the troops. The election hangover is finished. Accountability is in, and it starts with each of us.

It has been some time since my last post to TDB. I was fortunate to recently come back to NZ briefly for a bit of a break from my work in Pakistan. While my visit was super short, I took the opportunity to read Dirty Politics.

Unfortunately, the book confirmed a number of themes that I have touched on in my previous posts: the devious control of the political narrative, the voracious hunger for those seeking political power for the pure purpose of having political power, a mainstream media bullied by constant deadlines resulting in superficial analysis, and a lack of accountability evident in an arrogant ruling class.

There is one other theme that I have raised on occasion – that it is in the interests of the privileged to not have an engaged body politic.

They don’t actually want you to vote.

This strategy is confirmed by Simon Lusk in the book and it is clear that it has been taken on board by the National Party through these scurrilous dealings ultimately leading to the Ninth Floor of the Beehive.

Remember, and as others have stated, this comes down to choice. Politics does not demand such behaviour. The excuse that this is mandated by the modern political world is not an absolution – it is a lean to mediocrity and a compromise on the values that we expect of our fellow citizens, let alone our leaders.

Through all this one particular response from the prime minister has fascinated me. His claim that really New Zealanders want to talk about policy has been both enlightening as it is misleading. It is enlightening in that yet again we see his strategy of telling New Zealanders what we should be thinking, and misleading in that he himself, as a New Zealander, doesn’t want to talk about policy.

For me, leadership is about having a vision. Leadership means brining people on board that vision and implementing it. This is not by force, or by stealth, but by giving people ownership of your vision meaning that it becomes collective.

Sometimes, as a leader, your vision changes as others help to improve it. But, ultimately, leadership and the power that governance provides, gives you both the privilege and responsibility to use that power to improve the lives of all New Zealanders.

But, when I look at our current government, I see no vision. I see no leadership.

This remains a government with no ideas. Bill English confirmed as much on The Nation when he was unable to point to any economic vision absent relying on the status quo.

Unfortunately, the status quo is not working for New Zealanders across the country as a whole. We have seen a stuttering, yet claimed, “rockstar economy” based on Christchurch and dairy prices. Neither of these was at the design of our macro-economic management, and both have short term legitimacy.

And, although unnecessary to say, I still struggle to see how the rebuild of Christchurch can be relied upon to point to “growth”. I understand this intellectually, but it belies the collective social reality of Christchurch. The trauma of that city and its people remain.

Meanwhile, we have sold off our dividend earning assets and stopped contributions to the performing Cullen Fund. We have made payouts to corporates while execs pay for personal attacks to undermine criminal investigations into the excesses of financial (mis)management.

Through these supposedly boom times, our debt has ballooned out past $60 billion, inequality remains a fundamental wedge across our society, children remain in poverty with unforgiveable health outcomes, and we remain in what is clearly a low-wage economy where families are genuinely struggling.

There is one thing that the National Party got right in its election advertising. We are sitting in a boat going backwards, while some folks are going in the other direction on a $78 million yacht that is invite only.

I am constantly asking myself what are the job options right now. What if you are a school leaver from, say, Huntly and you have no interest in further education? What jobs can you do? Apprenticeships are virtually non-existent (but you are forced into private job training). You may be able to get a job in a café working minimum wage?

What if you are a 30-something professional working in London, Australia or Hong Kong? What are your options back in New Zealand? Some sectors are great, but across the board the options are limited. You still have to work hard (sometimes harder), but wages are generally less and you are confronted with having to enter our over-priced and prohibitive housing market.

For me, what this speaks to what I call our “diluted economy”. We lack real diversity in our economy meaning that there is no range of options. Where there is potential – for example, in our primary industries – we are not doing enough to leverage those assets. Too much of the income earning potential flows overseas.

Job creation is difficult, almost impossible, unless we stimulate investment and innovation in developing new sectors. We need to promote the flow of money back into our economy to create the higher earning jobs.

“Where do we sit on our government debt? What is happening with our housing crisis? Where is the investment in addressing child poverty? What strategies do we have for job creation? What about the quality of those jobs? How is the increasing amount of people exposed to precarious work beneficial for our country? What jobs are there for people in the regions? What options are there for school leavers? What are we doing to address our over-valued dollar? Do we have any strategy beyond primary industries? Are we going to have any discussion about our growing retirement liability? Did anyone actually read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report?”

These questions remain. Despite John Key’s call to talk policy, he and his cohorts are unable to answer these questions.

In contrast, Labour has a fully costed economic upgrade. The Greens outline a cohesive argument for an economy based on innovation and sustainability. I am attracted to these policy platforms as they actually outline a vision that is long-term in outlook, is dynamic, and creates in me an expectation of a better New Zealand for more of our people.

Ultimately, that is what I expect of our leadership. I expect an economic vision, rooted in the values of equity and fostering creativity.

Wouldn’t that be exciting? A New Zealand competing across different sectors, creating more wealth for more of us, while nurturing our greatest asset – our environment – for our future generations.

As a country, we should demand this of our leaders. Do not accept the status quo built on wealth and social division. Demand a future that is aspirational, yet tangible, and grounded in sound economic policy.

Steven Joyce was bullying and boorish. He consistently interrupted and talked over both Grant Robertson and the host, Lisa Owen. At one stage, Joyce would not let Owen cut to a break and continued talking like a spoilt child angry at his Christmas presents.

Grant Robertson also interrupted Joyce. In my view, he had no choice – he could not allow the bullying to stand. He had to be assertive and challenge this aggressive and adversarial behaviour. I was impressed at the way he stood up to this bully – kudos to Grant, but how disappointing he had to do it.

Make no mistake, the disappointing tone of the “debate” was set by Joyce. He made it impossible for either Robertson or Owen to speak without shouting. As a result, the “debate” itself was a complete mess. It was terrible to watch and did nothing substantive to contribute to any reasonable discussion around policy and the role of government in economic development. That, after all, was the point of having both of them on the programme.

I found the panel after the “debate” more helpful in terms of thinking about our economic development. Both Selwyn Pellett and Fran O’Sullivan brought real analysis to how we leverage our greatest assets and think longer term about injecting more value throughout our economy.

Along with diversity, the question of foreign ownership of our assets is a serious question. We cannot be flippant in how we deal with this issue. We need to find the correct balance between creating foreign direct investment to supplement our own lack of cash while ensuring a reasonable share of the profits and benefits from such investment stay in New Zealand.

There is nothing xenophobic about having a clear and articulated regime around foreign investment. The Chinese do it. The Aussies do it. We need a stronger and more comprehensive regime focused on developing our economy, not some laissez faire approach ignorant of our realities. This is actually a critical plank of any economic development strategy.

Yet, none of this was actually discussed in any intelligent way in this “debate” around our economic development.

But, of course, this is a deliberate and planned outcome from the debate consistent with National’s strategy this election. It is straight from the Crosby/Textor playbook. We have seen examples of it before, such as when Simon Bridges came out swinging against John Campbell throwing more angry combinations than most Commonwealth boxers. Lead out aggressively, make the attacks personal, do everything you can to avoid being held to account, speak loudly and quickly while certainly making sure to do nothing around discussing your actual plans for the future.

In short, don’t talk policy.

Joyce was determined not to talk policy. He was determined to talk over Grant Robertson. He was determined to talk over Lisa Owen. He was determined to make a bite size line stick – that Labour is xenophobic. That was his constant refrain: “for Labour, James Cameron is OK, but not the Chinese”.

Some of you might say: “who cares? Only politicos watch this show anyway.”

Well, it does matter. First, because we are entitled as an electorate to have an open and transparent discussion around the direction we are heading as a country. This is especially so given our reduced manufacturing and over-reliance on dairy. Second, the bite size lines do stick and go further than the viewers watching this show. The headline on The Herald website was that Labour was accused of being xenophobic. It is deliberate, and plays into our superficial analysis of our country’s direction.

What is clear is that National does not want to talk policy. Because the reality is that National is still mired in a disproven ideology meaning that their overall policy is to have no policy.

The free market mantra remains their catch call and they are happy to leave things to the “invisible hand” of the market. Well, that hand is pretty invisible. Despite this ideology being fundamentally disproved by the Global Financial Crisis, the economic elite have no reason to abandon it. It continues to serve their purposes with no serious accountability for the failure of that ideology as seen in New Zealand through this government’s corporate crony capitalism and the windfall of the sale of public assets.

The problem is that this theory follows completely false assumptions. The free market theory, adopted to organising our social structures, depends on individuals being inherently suspicious of each other and driven only by self-interest.

But, that is not how we work.

Humanity works best when we are compassionate, collective, and caring. Who would deny that? Look at our most concrete social structure: the family. Do families work best with members inherently suspicious of each other and driven only by self-interest?

This theory of self-interest and individualism assumes a lack of faith in humanity. We need to reject that assumption, reject thirty years of neo-liberalism, and work towards recreating Godszone reflective of the values we share as New Zealanders.

When people say that there is no difference between Labour and National, I challenge that. Look at the policies of the respective parties – go to their websites. Labour has policies covering a range of issues: housing, education, youth employment, raising the minimum wage, regional development… Actual ideas. National wants to bring a corporate model to education, build more inefficient roads in their Minister’s electorates, and spy on all of us.

Labour’s policies directly acknowledge the role of government. Along with the other progressive policies on the ticket, we are starting to see – albeit at snail’s pace – a response to the failures of neoliberalism resulting in our developing inequalities.

But Joyce and Co don’t want to talk about that. They don’t want to talk about anything.

Actually, if you really want to know National’s policies, take a look at ACT’s website. That’s where you’ll find ‘em.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/08/05/nationals-election-strategy/feed/19Positive and Solution Based Politicshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/08/positive-and-solution-based-politics/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/07/08/positive-and-solution-based-politics/#commentsTue, 08 Jul 2014 00:06:55 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=48885
It has been a fascinating month – at times depressing – to be watching New Zealand politics from afar.

Over here in Pakistan where I am currently working we have seen the Government begin a military offensive in North Waziristan to flush out the Taliban following failed peace talks. This offensive has led to the displacement of over 500,000 people fleeing conflict and uncertainty.

Just think about that for a second: in what was little over a week, we had 500,000 people being forced to move. That’s basically Wellington city and its surrounding region.

Most of this has a direct and ongoing impact in the regions around the city of Peshawar. I will be heading to Peshawar next week, so it will be interesting to hear more about the emergency and how people on the ground are able to provide food, shelter, and hope to this mass of people equaling the region surrounding our nation’s capital.

In response to this offensive, the Taliban and associated militants are threatening retribution against Government entities and, basically, foreigners. In Islamabad, where I live, there is a real sense of tension with a feeling that something could happen at any time coloured by the airport attack in Karachi recently. I am basically living in lock down.

So, in my times of lock down, I search for respite with news from home. I mean, we have an election this year, so there must be interesting and engaging analysis from Aotearoa. A frank assessment of where our country stands, suggestions for the future targeting gaps in our societal and economic outcomes, along with charismatic leaders looking to take us down a brighter pathway.

Right?

There must be…

Well, and as you will all appreciate, this last month has seen the more pernicious side of politics rear its ugly head in our governing landscape. The “gotcha” attempts by the National Party through a willing and suppliant media betray the realities facing New Zealand.

This past week, I checked the website of one daily publication where on the home page the reader was confronted with David Cunliffe apologizing for being a man, two additional headlines critical of the Labour party including an opinion piece written by a media commentator who holds another platform at 7pm every weeknight on a national broadcaster to promote a particular perspective, and a photo of Cunliffe looking awkward next to a smiling John Key.

Well, you know what? I’m sick of it.

More important than my own personal aversion, this attempt to control the narrative and pre-determine the electoral outcome by sectors of New Zealand completely undermines our democracy and plays only into the hands of the privileged.

Here is the thing: we have a moment right now. Actually, we don’t really have much of a choice when you stand back and think about it. There are two fundamental and interlinked issues we absolutely have to address as a nation.

First, we have not responded to the reality presented by the Global Financial Crisis. Instead of confronting this, we have returned to business as usual neo-liberalism with minor tinkering around the edges.

In truth, and supported now by more and more writing out of academia from Piketty et al, we need to abandon thirty years of neo-liberalism and this religious adherence to an economic doctrine that was fundamentally proven wrong by the Global Financial Crisis.

That doctrine wedges inequality further into our society, does nothing to address it, and has no plan for economies of the scale such as New Zealand as witnessed by the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector and the pushing of New Zealanders into primarily service driven employment.

As an aside, one aspect of New Zealand politics features an individual heavily immersed in that doctrine. An individual who worked for Merrill Lynch, a company so compromised by the Global Financial Crisis that it required saving by Bank of America, an almost incestuous relationship, one which I suppose the Act Party might support given its leader’s expressed predilection towards relationships of this nature. It follows that this aspect of New Zealand politics is unlikely to confront the objective reality of the Global Financial Crisis.

Second, the final reporting from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change leaves no room for debate. We need to engage in policies to protect the environment, not continually exploit the gifts of our blessed country kidnapped by short-term lazy thinking.

These two themes for me are fundamental. I appreciate there are more issues to discuss, in both the macro and micro sense. But, as a citizen and someone engaged in our polity, I want to know what the options are.

In short, I want to hear positive and solution based politics.

Instead, I am served up a diet of material that takes us no further in addressing these issues. That distraction is deliberate, of course, as it serves the minority holding the reins of power.

Over the last few months we have seen some parties attempt to engage in policy debate. The roll out of key platforms from Labour show that it is a government in waiting with genuine ideas. This is supported by strong socially progressive ideals from the Greens and we clearly know the bottom lines for the Internet Mana Party. Even Act has released some policy, which is to be lauded for engaging in the discussion.

Meanwhile, we have a government with no ideas. Policy transparency is wafer thin, with the only suggestions to date being to corporatize our education along with a Labour-lite budget clearly designed as an election bribe.

The challenge for you, dear reader, is to not buy into this fog of distraction. Demand and seek out the policy ideas for our country. Bring these discussions to your family and friends, and do not fall for the pre-determined narrative.

For, if we demand positive and solution based politics, we inevitably engage our people into thinking about what their vote can do. Otherwise, they won’t vote.

And, guess what? One side doesn’t want them to vote. The side that doesn’t want you to vote.

Just this week there has been a reported drone strike in North Waziristan, Pakistan, allegedly killing ten militants. We have been told to expect some retaliation in other parts of Pakistan, but let’s hope that this does not materialise. Things certainly feel a bit hot in Quetta where I am at the moment, but maybe I spend too much time talking to security guys.

Actually, things feel a bit hot across the region. The startling news from Iraq this week amid the on-going tragedy that is Syria are yet more examples of the despair of the many driven by the desire for power by the few.

However, and back to the drones, given this strike and the recent killing of a New Zealander in Yemen by the use of an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), I thought it might be helpful for our TDB readership to provide a Reader’s Digest version of the preliminary issues concerning the use of UAVs to kill under international law.

I do so with the caveat that I am not an expert in this field but at least appreciate some of the issues to be able to briefly sketch them out here. I also apologise to those better informed for the extremely general nature of this piece, as I generally apologise for the inarticulate and ill-informed nature of my posts.

UAVs are either remote controlled devices with an operator or have a pre-programmed flight path. There are several different uses for UAVs. In the military, these range from direct combat missions (delivering a weapons payload) to reconnaissance as well as other more discrete uses.

Beyond the military, UAVs are also used in criminal law enforcement and covert surveillance. There are also a considerable range of uses in civilian life – search and rescue operations through to even courier deliveries.

So, UAVs are here to stay, folks! Don’t worry about that. We will become more used to them and I am sure that we will come to rely on them. There are such obvious advantages to using UAVs across all of these current and potential uses, including in combat not exposing your own troops to enemy engagement.

But, as we embrace technology and its advances, we need to remain alert to its nefarious use inconsistent with a modern progressive society placing a primacy on the value of universal human rights. It is evident that the technology has outstripped the law and society’s understanding of the options available to our governments, in parallel with how our governments conduct surveillance of our activities through the Five Eyes network.

In this matter, and in other matters concerning “national security”, our democracy fails us with an absence of informed debate coloured by superficial one-liners demonstrative of an environment lacking in true accountability and transparency. It seems that as soon as the words “national security” are uttered this stifles any robust discussion.

Despite the value of this lament, I digress. Let me return to the topic at hand and specifically the use of UAVs to kill. In other words, targeted killing by the state.

A fascinating backdrop to this is the Israeli Supreme Court’s 2006 decision on that government’s targeted killing policy (law nerds: read it!). In that decision the Court held that targeted killing was legal, provided that:

the decision to kill is based on reliable evidence;

the measure of targeted killing has to be proportionate;

the attack must be followed by a thorough investigation; and

collateral damage (meaning the harming of innocent bystanders) must be proportionate

I set these out because I feel they provide a helpful frame of reference in thinking about the use of targeted killing.

“Proportionality” also incorporates its own test. In sum (and I am paraphrasing terribly here), proportionality requires that the goal is legitimate in response to the harm feared and that all other means of achieving the same result (removing the risk of harm) have been determined to be unavailable.

In the sense of collateral damage, the harming of other individuals is proportionate only when the goal of removing the risk of harm is able (somehow) to justify such collateral injury or loss of life. In short, a really big cheese might mean you get away with a few more innocent deaths.

The really interesting discussion in the Israeli Supreme Court though was around who was being targeted. Specifically, were these individuals actively taking part in hostilities and thus legitimate targets.

Herein lies the rub. This is the fundamental issue here for under international law governments can kill people legally.

Civilized countries do not condone the use of the death penalty. This is prohibited by international human rights law in breach of the fundamental principle of the right to life.

Yet, and as we well know, several countries do carry out the death penalty, meaning that this principle is not absolute. Where countries employ the death penalty, international human rights law requires that this only be done where it is proportionate (again!) to the crime committed and where the accused is given all of the rights due under internationally recognised principles of natural justice/due process (right to a fair trial, lawyer, appeals…etc.). Failure to follow any of these processes amounts to extrajudicial killing.

Primarily, though, international law allows governments to kill people during armed conflict. (I won’t go into other issues of necessity or justification and probably lots more too that are not currently coming to mind).

Under international humanitarian law (the law of armed conflict) you can legitimately kill a combatant (a soldier), but you cannot target civilians or when a combatant is no longer taking part in hostilities. This latter point refers to the idea of being “hors de combat” – being rendered defenseless or a prisoner of war. You cannot kill prisoners of war – that is a war crime.

So, in order to justify the killing of individuals in Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the US has to argue that these individuals are combatants. To get there, the US has to argue that they are combatants engaged in an armed conflict with the US. Yep, you guessed it, the “war on terror”.

Is the US engaged in an armed conflict in all of these countries? Ask yourself that question. Ask your family, your friends and your colleagues.

The extreme result of such an interpretation is that the US (or China, maybe) can target individuals in any country if they determine them to somehow be a risk to their national security. The US has shown absolutely no regard for the territorial sovereignty of Pakistan or Yemen in carrying out these attacks.

The other interpretation argued by various commentators is that the “war on terror” is more appropriately characterized as an international criminal law enforcement operation. This interpretation prefers other methods of bringing these terrorists to account over the use of lethal force. In applying this interpretation, you are specifically saying that the US is not involved in an armed conflict so international humanitarian law does not apply.

I don’t know the answer. But, I know it’s an important issue, and it concerns me that we are being left behind on this debate when one of our citizens is killed.

We do not condone the death penalty in New Zealand, so we should not condone so easily the targeted killing of one of our own.

I was extremely disappointed by the prime minister’s dismissive response that he was “comfortable” with the killing. This is, of course, consistent with his practice of pithy answers and never being openly bothered or fazed by anything. As for me, I do not for one second condone this individual’s association with these violent and oppressive people, but I do expect my government to protect its citizens and seek accountability for their death regardless of the situation.

In this case, I would have expected our government to ask for a report on the attack and its justification. More than just a briefing, but an actual report similar to the investigation required by the Israeli Supreme Court. I would then make available to the public the parts of the report that could be disclosed without genuinely undermining national security. Only then can we attempt to determine if the attack was a proportionate response. Also, in demanding this transparency, we make the US more accountable for its global activities.

To be frank, the information we have about this particular killing is so sparse we cannot intelligently discuss it. What would the US do if we killed one of their citizens?

Remember, what we allow the US so easily to do today, we set a precedent for what other countries can do in the future.

Discuss.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/14/what-a-drone/feed/3Taking freedom for grantedhttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/11/taking-freedom-for-granted/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/06/11/taking-freedom-for-granted/#commentsTue, 10 Jun 2014 20:13:43 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=47700
For those of you who regularly read my posts, all 3 of you, you may recall that I am currently in Pakistan.

At the moment I am writing this in Quetta, Baluchistan, scene of a current insurgency with simmering sectarian violence thrown in as well. There are differing reports, but there was a bomb here this weekend killing over 20 people. Regular news in these here parts.

I am in Quetta immediately following time in Peshawar, further north in Pakistan and the traditional gateway to Afghanistan and Central Asia. That place too is a scene where violence is an often bedfellow for the people on the streets of this most ancient of cities.

Men’s egos and desire for power overcoming the ability of regular folks to live without fear. This is not at all helped by the “advances” of technology and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles to mete out a peculiar form of justice with a direct relevance in this part of the world.

This morning, I woke up to the disquieting news of the attack at Karachi Airport. The Pakistan Taliban has claimed responsibility for this attack right in the middle of attempted dialogue between the federal government and this fractured group. The peace talks now destined to the waste-bin through this act of murder by a group less focused on promoting collective ideals of society than its own consolidation of power.

Life in Pakistan is tough. People live in fear. They are on edge. They are not free.

Yet, there is also a resilience here. People enjoy life. Kids on the street playing cricket (although often fooled by my off-cutters), delicious spicy biryani, families together in the parks having picnics, carpet salesman smiling at me as they rip me off…there is an infectious humanity that leaves me smiling every day.

I really admire the people of Pakistan – how can I not? But, I feel for them when I hear my local friends speak of a much freer time. The tension of today, driven by the egos of men across the globe, narrows the scope of human achievement in this country, denying an entire generation their own potential.

Of course, there is no parallel in Aotearoa. To suggest so, I think, belittles the day to day struggles of life in Pakistan.

In saying that, and I want to emphasise that I am not suggesting a parallel between the two countries, I got to thinking today about our little country. I had to acknowledge, as I acknowledge my own privilege in writing this, that there are people who live in New Zealand in fear. To them, the rock-star economy is illusive. They can’t even buy a ticket to see the rock-star economy. Actually, many don’t even get to join the queue.

The egos of men, this relentless pursuit of short-term profit at any cost, the commodification of education, our covert surveillance, an elected elite providing consistent evidence of corruption, and the decision to ignore or even deny privilege, all narrows the scope of our achievement and ultimately denies our potential.

But, the die is not cast. There is a vibrant progressive movement in Aotearoa with egalitarianism at its core. Motivated by the stain of inequality and the hangover of thirty years of a failed economic experiment resulting in utter impunity for those who caused catastrophe, this movement in Aoteaora joins others across the world. Our movement has different planks, but those planks can be strapped together to form the life raft our country’s potential so desperately needs.

When I look at our progressive movement, I see a dynamism that the right paints as division. I see a dynamic and diverse group of people with a range of complementary skills looking to do better for their communities.

Division does not truly belong in this new progressive movement. For those that cling to it, their time has past, and they fail to see the needs of our modern society in response to our antiquated ruling class.

To realise the ideals of equality, social cohesion, and opportunity, this movement needs to embrace each other. Yes, there will be differences, but this will promote dialogue and discussion in contrast to the current reign addicted to the drug of control and acutely in fear of an engaged public.

But, in order to get there, we shouldn’t take our freedom for granted. As a society, we need to fight for our freedom and stand up for that freedom when it is being chipped away at whether explicitly through the GCSB or implicitly through policy cloaked in deceptive fabric.

This government and its cronies won’t hesitate to narrow your potential when it suits their short-term interests. The question is, will you let them?

The true nature of this government has been on show in recent weeks. We have seen consistent evidence of a government ruling for the economic elite with little or no regard for the broader population.

The actions of this government speak to an arrogance and commensurate sense of entitlement. This is shared with our own economic elite and replicated across the western world through the tentacles of neo-liberalism – a failed economic experiment that holds on desperately through the continued corruption of political life and the imposed consent of the masses while entrenching inequality.

In Aotearoa, accompanying this unjustified privileging is an apparent lack of contrition. Judith Collins remains steadfast in refusing to accept the existence of a conflict of interest while Maurice Williamson seems to genuinely believe that he has done nothing wrong. Meanwhile, Simon Bridges is perhaps just guilty of ignorance when he signs off on the degradation of our protected land, but neo-liberalism justifies this as a rational pursuit of profit regardless of the long term cost to our country.

Maurice Williamson’s resignation was not a solitary event for this government. It follows in the footsteps of, off the top of my head, Richard Worth, Pansy Wong, John Banks, Peter Dunne, Nick Smith, and Aaron Gilmore. Along with a gaggle of resignations in advance of the upcoming election, some external observers might even dare to suggest that this is a government in crisis, with consistent concerns around the behaviour of MPs. But no, it is merely renewal, they tell me.

What the evidence shows is a government dealing out favours to their corporate backers and ideological bed pals. Whether it be better access to Ministers, bailing out corporates, changing our employment laws, meals at Antoines, or a massive transfer of public wealth into private hands, this government has a clear and undeniable track record of meeting the short term needs of the economic elite at the expense of the long term health of New Zealand.

With the very public mistakes of Collins and Williamson, the stench of cronyism was finally beginning to stick. Members of the public were beginning to see the true motives of their governing representatives, and the smell was undeniable.

What we have also seen is a relentless obsession with power, consistent with the neo-liberal doctrine. That doctrine is flexible, for it allows for a shift in ideology, so long as it is for the shortest time possible and results in a maintenance of power. This is particularly so in an election year. Power above principle, it would seem.

As it happens, this is an election year.

This week’s Budget announcement saw what some commentators have called a “Labour-lite” Budget, with messaging clearly aimed at grabbing the attention of “middle” New Zealanders through a modicum of social spending. However, this shift to the left seems to have escaped, by in large, critical analysis by a suppliant media content to recycle the government’s spin.

The pre-Budget nod to tax cuts was another technique to highlight better things are coming for that same middle ground. Speaking plainly, these moves were electioneering, not long term fiscal management of our economy.

We are left, then, with some unanswered questions. When we look at the content of the Budget, how does the Budget address the fundamental challenges we face?

Where do we sit on our government debt? What is happening with our housing crisis? Where is the investment in addressing child poverty? What strategies do we have for job creation? What about the quality of those jobs? How is the increasing amount of people exposed to precarious work beneficial for our country? What jobs are there for people in the regions? What options are there for school leavers? What are we doing to address our over-valued dollar? Do we have any strategy beyond primary industries? Are we going to have any discussion about our growing retirement liability? Did anyone actually read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report?

The reality is that we are faced with a government with no ideas. A government that clearly favours the economic elite, yet has no plan to empower the community as a whole.

So, why is it then that this government continues to garner support? Why is it that a significant number of New Zealanders are voting against their own self-interest?

Because we live in a hegemonic society. The proponents of neo-liberalism have succeeded in having an all encompassing ideology supplanting our collective social goals. As the Australian thinker Anne Manne wrote in 2010:

“…the values of the market began to colonise the life-world. Its assumptions seeped inexorably into every cultural pore, penetrating all kinds of relationships, however intimate. As a consequence, our very sense of self began to change and to become more consistent with neo-liberalism’s self-sufficient and self-interested ideal: Economic Man.”

To achieve this, neo-liberalism has deliberately developed what the academic David Harvey calls a “construction of consent”.

In New Zealand, an example is the construction of consent around a re-engineering of our values when it comes to social welfare. For decades we had a social welfare system – although not perfect – that provided a safety net driven by compassion for our fellow members of society. The language of the neo-liberals, however, removed any references to “compassion” or “fairness”, while instead using the mantra of “dependence”, leading to social exclusion and blame of those in need of assistance.

Deliberately ignorant of privilege, the blame directed at the poorest is used to mask policies aimed at providing for the wealthy. More cynically, this strategy of blame creates a wedge between the working poor and those receiving assistance. Beneficiaries are blamed for the lack of money for the working poor when in truth it has been siphoned off to the wealthy. This is evident in the concentration of wealth in the top 10% as we tilt towards an oligarchy. Collateral damage in this deliberate exclusion? The children: now with 285,000 in poverty. In New Zealand.

Other examples are in education and health, with the development of systems adding to pre-existing privileging.

Fuelled by anger and mis-informed by spin, the same academic David Harvey sums it up best:

“Not for the first, nor, it is to be feared, for the last time in history has a social group been persuaded to vote against its material, economic, and class interests…”

The challenge for the opposition this election is to break beyond the fog of neo-liberalism, and to tap into the real self-interest of New Zealanders: a better society with more opportunities right across the socio-economic spectrum. They can do this through positive, smart, solution oriented messaging – not through divisive and negative tactics.

The good news is that there is a global populist movement coming together to re-orient ourselves to our collective well-being. This movement particularly targets the lack of accountability following the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. We also see calls for the freedom of the internet and an ensured realm of privacy to maintain the ability to challenge tyrannical government, particularly prescient for New Zealand given our collusion in the narrowing of the global private sphere.

Finally, we are even seeing in the United States members of the establishment questioning the secrecy and benefits around free trade agreements with Senator Elizabeth Warren rightly querying the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Ultimately, we need to move beyond this outdated orthodoxy proven to be fundamentally flawed by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. We need to remember why we have a government – not to make money, but to allow a society to flourish. That will not happen with a government serving only a few. We need a government serving the interests of New Zealanders right across society grounded in equity and access to opportunity for all.

Toronto has just hosted a fascinating debate this weekend. The motion “That state surveillance is a legitimate defence of our freedoms”.

For the motion was former NSA and CIA head Michael Hayden and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Against the motion was Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian and the journalist who broke the Snowden leak, Glenn Greenwald.

The result: an intelligent, informed, and robust discussion of differing views.

We need this in New Zealand. In the push to pass the GCSB legislation in 2013 we heard plenty of speakers and arguments against the legislation.

What was the response to those arguments?

If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

You can trust the PM – he’ll carefully watch over surveillance requests.

There are people with terrorism links in New Zealand.

None of those responses give me comfort. Nor do I truly understand the basis for extended surveillance powers beyond superficial assertion. I would like to understand the counter arguments. I would like to know why we are enabling state surveillance rather than restricting it.

What is the evidence and the facts behind the need to infringe the right to privacy? Isn’t this about finding a balance? How do we ascertain that balance without knowing the arguments? What are the good reasons behind state surveillance? How does this system protect citizens in the future? What are the advantages to New Zealand in being part of the Five Eyes network? How does protecting our economic interests inform any state surveillance?

I do not understand why we are not, as a society, demanding this discussion. These issues are fundamental.

Or, am I wrong? Is this Orwellian adventure simply the price of living in this modern world?

I am calling for a GCSB debate. Let’s have informed speakers on both sides bring their best arguments to an open, public forum. If they can do it in Toronto featuring those intimately aware and informed of these issues, why can’t we do it in New Zealand?

I mean, isn’t that what living in a democracy is about?

The Toronto debate is available online and is fascinating. You can access the video here. Scroll down to the bottom of the page for the debate video. The debate begins proper at the 29 minute mark.

A previous post of mine was called “The Government with no ideas”. Unsurprisingly, the theme of the piece was of a current government thoroughly absent of any creative ideas or solutions to assist more New Zealanders achieve a decent standard of living.

Well, they still have no idea.

You might not have realised it, but we actually reached a fundamental point in history this last week. In the future, people will look back at this time and say: “that is when things changed!!”.

(Or will they?)

The release of the concluding part of the fifth and final report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) occurred on 14 April 2014 and represents a marker in history. From now on, there is simply no doubt. The science is out, and climate change is in.

The sceptics are scurrying away into silence, their increasing marginalisation by the Tsunami of evidence only outweighed by their motivation flowing from matters other than scientific.

But, the response from our government has so far been deafening in its silence. Indeed, the only related and contemporaneous action has been to approve further exploration permits, including over pristine and protected land (of which the Minister was ignorant – he’s lining up Aorangi next!). I could appreciate the irony more, were it not so symptomatic of an abdication of responsibility and leadership. Yet further proof of this government’s genuflection at the altar of profit.

The thing is, though, I’m not much of a scientist. I probably couldn’t even turn on a Bunsen burner these days. Nor am I much of a greenie – I mean, I like recycling, but I also like to shower fairly regularly. So, a commitment to the environment and mitigating the impacts of climate change has never really been at the centre of my personal or political philosophies.

I am, though, a pragmatist. I believe in confronting problems head on. There is simply no point putting your head in the sand and ignoring the challenges you face, especially when you are talking about the responsibilities of our elected representatives.

This government is happy with the head in the sand approach. Captured by privileging short term wallet expansion over long term survival, the short term wins out every time.

One of the refrains we hear from this government is that there is no point for New Zealand to set ambitious targets or take other innovative steps without a binding international agreement. Taking that argument further, the theory is that New Zealand companies would be at competitive disadvantage if put to higher standards.

Superficially, this argument has some appeal. But, I don’t buy it. My concern, especially following the IPCC reporting and the shift towards consensus that international action is required, is that New Zealand companies and industries will be caught short. Ultimately, we will be less competitive.

This is particularly so given our isolation. A global food shortage might sound great right now for New Zealand’s industries, but it won’t help much if we can’t transport our products anywhere.

Waiting for an international treaty just leaves us behind the curve. We need to be in front of the curve with our sectors ready and able to ship their goods and sell their innovation to the world.

So, what would I like to see?

I would confront this by trying to come up with strategies and targets, but I would not want to impose these. For this to work, I think you need buy-in and committment.

I would set up a cross-sector task force with an aggressive mandate. Constituents would include scientists (like Professor Ralph Sims who is a member of the IPCC), Iwi, industry representatives, and members of civil society. Shoot, Richie McCaw too – he makes his living off grass.

No politicians though. This needs to be non-partisan.

I would set up a three day summit where New Zealanders can come and submit ideas and thinking to the task force. We could have speakers address key themes and possible solutions. The summit would have side events focused on green technology, sustainability awareness raising, and specific sessions targeted for school kids. Civil society and advocacy groups can create their own side events on specific issues. There will be an online interactive space where New Zealanders can also engage – by submitting proposals, posting videos of great inventions, and voting on already submitted ideas. It will be a national discussion, where those who want to participate, can.

Let’s create some energy around solutions. Let’s bring people together. Let’s do something.

Yes, it might be hard to come to an agreement and of course there are flaws in my idea. But, this is the biggest challenge facing our planet right now. If we do nothing about it, then what does that say about us?

All of the focus here has been on the first round of the Afghan elections. I have met a few international humanitarian workers who have come here out of caution to avoid the potential danger the elections posed. Prior to Saturday, the feeling was tense.

Fortunately, though, the predicted violence has not arisen. Yes, there have been some incidents, including the terrible shooting of two journalists in Khost. The death of Anja Niederinghaus was a useless and reckless end to an amazingly creative and inspiring life.

But, overall, this first round has been deemed a success, with three million more voters turning out than the 2009 elections, according to BBC reporting. Despite the very real and tangible threats from the Taliban and other anti-government elements, the people have turned out to participate in their governance.

Can you imagine that? Risking your life to vote.

To stand in a long line outside a polling booth with people running around all over the place in a sense of seemingly organized chaos.

You stand outside, waiting for that chance to participate in your democracy, and the whole time you are exposed. You look at every approaching motorbike or car with caution. You want the line to hurry up.

But, you are going to vote.

Yet, in New Zealand, we can’t get 800,000 to turn up when there are no physical threats.

Guess what? This government doesn’t want you to vote.

This government knows that the fewer of you who really engage in our governance, then the less likely this government will be able to convince the electorate that it is generally acting in everyone’s best interests.

This is not unique to New Zealand. We are seeing in other western “democracies” captured by neo-liberalism a strong conservative movement with the underlying aim of denying informed and full enfranchisement.

The recent United States Supreme Court decision McCutcheonwas a natural and further step from the earlier infamous Citizens United decision viewing campaign donations as expression and thus worthy of constitutional protection. The result of McCutcheon is to lift campaign donor limits to US$3.5million. Music to the Koch brothers, but not the destitute people of East Detroit (where, actually, real music is made).

At the same time, more Republican controlled States in the US have taken up the Supreme Court’s invitation in a 2013 decision called Shelby County. This removed fundamental protections in the Voting Rights Act to avoid voter suppression disproportionately affecting black voters, particularly in the South.

Further north? The Conservative Canadians are having a go too. According to an excellent article by Sally Young in Melbourne’s The Age dated 1 April 2014:

But, what about Aotearoa? We haven’t seen an aggressive attack by the National Party on anything around voting rights, have we? Well, with 800,000 not turning up, they probably feel they don’t need to.

Of course, this could be on the agenda were National to prevail in this election. We don’t know. Actually, we know very little about what National plans to do, apart from applying corporate models to education.

It helps that National has a compliant media. A media more interested in personality than accountability. A media so suppliant to government spin that the election has been called before we are even out of the blocks.

And, what happens? We get a governance structure that is concerned with a consistent transfer of public wealth into private hands and a prioritizing of interests relevant to a small elite. We see a narrowing of our private space and a growing subservience to international corporates.

What we don’t get is better outcomes for more New Zealanders. We don’t see more money in more people’s pockets. We don’t have a society where we prioritise and support the vulnerable. We certainly don’t have anything approaching a long term plan to deliver a working and sustainable economy borne out of the lessons of the Global Financial Crisis.

So, there is one lesson we can take from Afghanistan. It’s worth voting.

Judith Collins has, if further evidence was required, revealed her true nature and contempt for the New Zealand electorate these last two weeks.

In my view, her attendance at Oravida is a conflict of interest (it goes beyond mere perception). The visit was clearly planned in advance and not a simple drop-in. The previously omitted dinner with Oravida staff and an unnamed Border Security official all lead to a conclusion that Judith Collins was doing favours for Oravida.

Favours for Oravida = favours for her spouse. I cannot fathom a clearer example of a conflict of interest.

Think of it another way.

Imagine this: the Thai Minister of Justice is in China. That Minister has dinner with officials from a Thai company and a Chinese public servant. The Thai Minister, before leaving China, then visits that same Thai company’s site, samples its products, and is complementary. The visit is recorded on the Thai company’s website in mandarin of the Minister endorsing the company’s product with a loose Thai translation.

The spouse of the Thai Minister is a director of the Thai company.

Now, rightly or wrongly, our inherent bias presumably dictates that we all assume immediately this is a conflict of interest. How is it any different because Judith Collins has done this? Stand back, look at this objectively and how it will be perceived from abroad: you can have no other conclusion.

What is worse, in many ways (but not in others), has been Collins’s response. Her aggressive retaliation of denials and then forced apology only speak to her sense of entitlement in stark contrast to her lack of understanding of the responsibilities of being a Minister.

Collins’s initial defence was that she was marketing NZ Inc. Yes, we expect our Ministers to do that, but we have conflict of interest rules for very good reason. No representative should use, or be seen to use, his office for the direct or indirect benefit of family or friends. Favouritism will seep through infecting our decision-making and political discourse.

This is fundamental, isn’t it?

Lately, Collins has been trying to say that she has been contrite and we should all move on. This is not consistent with her extremely forced apology, one which she herself described as “extraordinary” indicating to me that contrition was illusive.

This arrogance only speaks to her decision in the first place to meet with Oravida officials and visit the site. She felt above the rules, when she should have been staying as far away from her husband’s interests as possible.

Finally, I do not understand why the Minister was in China in the first place. Her portfolios of Justice, Ethnic Affairs, and ACC do not seem to require a visit to the People’s Republic. This has not been properly explained and at the outset seems to be an ill use of public money.

Sounds like a junket to me. A junket full of conflict. A conflict of interest.

I got lured in by Masterchef Australia, and then quickly fell for our own version. My Kitchen Rules in Australia also had me hooked and close to tears when Dan and Steph pulled it off (I said close). Soon we will have My Kitchen Rules New Zealand, and I love the concept on TV3 of The Great Food Race – half cooking show, half The Amazing Race. I would be awesome at that show. Just saying.

Of course, watching these shows is also painful. First, you feel for the contestants placed in these agonising and contrived situations. I mean, if my meal isn’t cooked, I let it cook a bit longer – there’s no time pressure (as my guests wait patiently…).

Second, you never get to actually taste the dishes, so you just stare at what looks amazing, but you have no way of knowing how it actually tastes. This prevents full audience participation. We don’t know what is really going on! Have the producers told the judges to keep a particular contestant in the show? I don’t know – I can’t taste the food! I wonder if in the future there will be an option to sample the food while watching the show: “press blue to beam up Katherine’s croquembouche ($29.95)”.

Third, the scheduling is awkward. The shows are on during dinner time, leading to inevitable comparison of my own attempt on the plate in front of me. I begin to question my suitability for The Great Food Race.

But, and jokes aside, there is one consistent theme between these “free-to-air” shows that strikes me as outdated, bizarre, and just plain wrong. None of them have female judges.

All of these shows are filled with male referees, apart from the odd appearance of a female guest judge. Yes, the male judges are all extremely competent, entertaining and respected, but this glaring omission is incomprehensible. How is this happening today?

I have some news for you folks: being an arbiter on good food does not require you to be a bloke.

At the risk of being accused of being sexist myself, women are great cooks! Normally, the best. The TV producers have dropped the ball on this one. Why haven’t we heard more about this? I don’t recall any reference to it in the media.

I’m calling for a “man ban” on TV cooking shows (well, actually, a diverse range of judges reflecting the full range of personalities working in our food and beverage industry).

_ _

Following this post, my TDB contributions will be less frequent. I am relocating next week to Pakistan to work with UNHCR on the Afghan refugee population for the rest of the year. It should be a fascinating experience.

My only regret is that I will not be in New Zealand to continue contributing directly to this progressive movement (I will try from afar). The last 30 years have failed us. The problem with having a rockstar economy is that we might end up spending too much time with “VIPs” and end up trashing our accommodation, while in truth we need an economy that works for all of us. We need a country premised on equality, driven by compassion, and where opportunity is accessible to everyone. That is something worth fighting for.

I used to love the The Jetsons. Remember? The cartoon with the family from the future! Brilliant Saturday morning cartoon viewing: “Meet George Jetson…”

Looking back now, I see elements that make me cringe, namely the lame gender stereotyping. They got one thing absolutely right, though, with the precarious nature of work in the 21st Century. This has even lead to an Americanism called “George Jetson Job Security” which, and although really tongue in cheek, does actually reflect the insecurity for many people in our modern workplaces.

Who would have thought the writers for TheJetsons were predicting the impact of neoliberalism on mid-western US families?! Impressive!

Back to the show…what I really loved was the imagination. The future looked like such an interesting place!

Flying cars, gourmet meals at the touch of a button, house robots at your beck and call. And, given the air quality evident from the bright blue skies in the cartoon, clearly the future of The Jetsons saw global carbon emissions retract with renewable energy widely available.

But my favourite insight into the future on The Jetsons was the video phone. I couldn’t think of anything better – being able to actually see the person you are talking to who is on the other side of the city/country/planet. What? No way!!

I become convinced this was even more exciting when the video phone appeared in Back to the Future Part II. By the time Mel Brooks was using it in Spaceballs – to ridiculous and infantile comic effect if you can remember the particular scene – I knew that the moment the video phone came into being I would be living in the future.

Well, it happened.

Personally, I was a little disappointed. I thought the arrival of the video phone would result in some sort of public holiday: the future is here, people of planet earth! But, no, the pace of technological change has just been so incredibly rapid in the past thirty years that the advent of the video phone became accepted as the norm fairly quickly.

So, and as part of its mainstreaming, I was not at all surprised to read in The Guardian that a video phone platform is the latest target for state authorised surveillance. In Britain, the timidly named Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) has been conducting surveillance of individuals through a programme called “Optic Nerve”.

The Guardian reported that Optic Nerve seems to have been running since 2008. In a period of six months in 2008, again according to The Guardian, the GCHQ collected “untargeted” images from 1.8 million Yahoo accounts using Yahoo’s webcam platform. Essentially, these are images taken while you are talking on the video phone – a screenshot if you like.

Now, just indulge me and take a moment to think about that a key word in that last paragraph: “untargeted”.

For emphasis, let me repeat: “untargeted”.

Yep. No evidence based surveillance. No individual warrant. No apparent and open oversight.

Yahoo responded to this discovery with anger calling it “a whole new level of violation of our users’ privacy”. I completely agree. I understand the rationale – developing facial recognition for detection of “suspects” – but the broad sweeping nature of surveillance over private (and intimate) conversations is to me a completely disproportionate response. This is not the future I want.

Of course, GCHQ is a partner of our own GCSB. So, after reading in The Guardian of this overreach of state power involving one of our security partners, I was very interested to see what the response in New Zealand would be.

So, we have a massive erosion of privacy by one of our security partners and we are only interested in the saucy bits? Oooh…the spies were capturing snapshots of people being a bit naughty, in their private and personal communications.

Is this how pathetic and superficial our analysis has become? This obsession in our media to connect anything with a sexual element does not serve us in any way.

To me, this is a complete erosion of privacy. I feel we are standing by and watching our private spaces disappear. All in the name of “national security”, but has anyone asked if our private moments are deserving of security? Isn’t that in the national – our – interest?

Personally, I would like to know if New Zealanders are being targeted. If so, by who? On what basis? And, to what level are our security services complicit – either directly or indirectly?

This all brings me back to the need we have in this country, and others, to discuss the correct balance between safety and privacy as we migrate into this digital world.

This is not a political discussion. It is a societal one.

For example, and contrary to how he has been portrayed, Edward Snowden is not some sort of raving left wing looney. He comes from a conservative, republican background who began to be influenced by libertarian values. The point is that this impacts all of us right across the political spectrum. As a society we need to be upfront around the extent of state power and how far we allow that to come into our daily lives.

Maybe I was right. Maybe, the video phone did bring in the future. Just the one that George Orwell imagined, not George Jetson.

I write for The Daily Blog because I believe that it is a small way for me to contribute in having a robust democracy in Aotearoa, even if it is only with my regular four readers (thanks Mum!).

Debate lies at the heart of this belief. As citizens, we should revel in a dialogue between ourselves framing the kind of society we want to live in with openness and transparency being a bedrock of that dialogue.

Given a disappointing mainstream media in New Zealand, blogs such as TDB form an even more important role. The internet provides an amazing forum for us to contribute to debate and present a progressive view. Yes, there are other perspectives on other blogs well represented. That is great and the whole point of having the conversation, even if I vehemently disagree with some of the opinions expressed.

Anyway, I digress…at a fundamental level right across the political spectrum this conversation includes questioning and holding our representatives to account. Our politicians, despite the views of those in power who self perceive as our rulers, are in fact our representatives. The Prime Minister’s dismissive approach to the referendum on asset sales is but one illustration of this Government’s self-perception of running a fiefdom, not a participatory democracy.

So, I have tried to make accountability a central tenet of my posts. A couple of months ago I wrote that an inquiry into the operation of our clandestine security services was still worth it. This week in approaching my TDB post I had intended to write again about GCSB & Co. I was concerned that this was getting off the radar. That I needed to ensure this was still part of the conversation.

But, thankfully, the GCSB put themselves back in the conversation! They screwed up! Nice work.

The Prime Minister’s childhood buddy, Ian Fletcher, has had to apologise for filing a botched Annual Report. They got the numbers wrong.

Let me get this straight: this entity which seemingly operates with no transparent oversight, stuff up the only thing that they have to do transparently? Oh dear.

It doesn’t engender much confidence in our security services, does it? This only provides further evidence – not that any more was needed – that an inquiry is still worth it.

This is fundamental. We need to have a conversation about how our state conducts surveillance on our behalf. We are absolutely entitled to have this conversation. Just because this involves “national security” does not mean the conversation is taken away from us by our patronising leaders. It is up to us, as a society, to have that conversation and then reach an appropriate balance.

When we did try to begin such a conversation the energy from the population was amazing – public town hall meetings live streamed by The Daily Blog were an indicator of the public’s readiness to engage in this discussion. But, it was shut down quick smart by this Government smashing to bits that bedrock of openness and transparency.

An inquiry provides us the best chance to have the conversation. We need to look at international examples and decide what works best for our society. What is that appropriate balance between ensuring our national security and upholding privacy along with the freedoms of thought, conscience and expression?

I firmly believe that we can lead the world in having this conversation. After our review, we should become the example that others seek to emulate.

Globally, I am trying to follow the discussion. Last week I was pleased to see that Glenn Greenwald (formerly of The Guardian and the leading journalist working with whistleblower Edward Snowden) has now launched his media project along with Laura Poitras and Jeremy Scahill. I highly recommend you follow The Intercept – although a broader context than NZ, the relevance to our conversation remains.

As more and more of our lives move online, new surveillance techniques will be developed. This will not be organic, but will be deliberate and targeted. Both Orwellian and Machiavellian. But, do not expect our Government to reign itself in on this, especially with pressure from our international partners. Ultimately, it is our society, and we need to demand a conversation – that is how democracy is supposed to work. Don’t let this one slide.

Our esteemed Minister for Foreign Affairs, Muzza McCully, has taken off for an effort to pitch for our inclusion on the UN Security Council.

This is something I support. And, I am sure this will receive support across most political parties, although Colin Craig may be of the view that the Security Council does not actually exist.

In politics, it is not unusual to see a reasonably bipartisan approach to foreign policy. Just look at the Bush/Obama administrations. Essentially, Obama has continued the same aggressive interpretation of executive power favoured by Cheney and Co in pursuing American interests abroad.

You could also say the same, in broad terms, of the National and Labour parties in New Zealand. Our pursuit of free trade agreements being a recent example. Our best moments, though, come where there is a point of difference, with our Nuclear Free policy being an outstanding example. I am also tempted to mention the 1981 Springbok tour, but some politicians can’t even remember their position on that seminal moment…

Back to the present. Clearly our membership on the Security Council is in our best interests so it is right to see bipartisan support.

Whether we will get there is another matter.

For me, a more interesting question entirely is whether we deserve to be there. What can we add to this body that has ultimate responsibility for global peace and security? Have we, as a small nation, illustrated an ability to lead the international community in a principled and constructive way?

Our advertising says that we do deserve to be there. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) has set up http://www.nzunsc.govt.nz where it states:

“New Zealand’s record at the UN reflects New Zealand’s values. We have a proven record of fairness and a constructive, practical approach. We have shown that we are able to listen and to talk (to all parties), be a bridge-builder between parties that don’t always want to talk to each other, and find solutions that work.”

Read that carefully.

Values.

New Zealand’s values.

What are our values? Seriously. I mean, if we are basing our sales pitch on this, then we should be able to articulate those values.

“Fairness” seems to be part of it. Everyone gets a fair go? The ability of anyone, no matter your size, to contribute? Little New Zealand at the edge of the world with our world beaters! We know, as a small country, how to fight as the little guy, as long as the playing field is fair.

Do these values resonate with New Zealanders anymore, or are we happy to pursue our own interests at the exclusion of others? Is that the New Zealand we have become now worn down by thirty years of neo-liberalism and the New Zealand we are happy to present to the world?

John Key at the UN General Assembly told the world we are firmly committed to a multilateral rules based approach to international law. Fairness. Yet, when he went to Sri Lanka and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting our actions belied that commitment. Rather than speak of accountability for human rights abuse and allegations of war crimes entirely consistent with upholding a multilateral rules based approach, instead we cut a business deal for Fonterra and set up an All Blacks fan club.

Are these “New Zealand’s values”?

For me, what happened in Sri Lanka was morally untenable, both in terms of the abuse that has occurred and our government’s silence. Those were not my values

Clearly Key, McCully and Groser have narrowed our foreign policy to focus on trade. Our Aid programme has suffered under this approach with almost zero in-country presence. This impacts our “soft power” in international relations speak. I saw this first hand working in South East Asia where I worked with US, EU, and Australian programmes to develop positive capacity building projects. I would have liked to work with my own country, but the option wasn’t there

In contrast to the rhetoric and sales pitch, our recent foreign policy actions indicate that we are no longer an independent, principled voice interested in fairness. We are now only at the table if we can smell the money (or if we agreed to it over a game of golf in Hawaii)

Let me be clear: there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a foreign policy where trade is prioritised. We should be promoting the ability for our enterprises to access foreign markets and take New Zealand products and ideas to the world.

But, our foreign policy should be about more. We can build on our traditions and the skills of our diplomats to where New Zealand is playing a “constructive” and “practical” role in the world beyond a narrow economic focus, especially in the South Pacific and up into Asia.

I sincerely hope we are successful in being elected to the Security Council. I hope it becomes an opportunity to play such a role, but I do not see how this government reflects the values that MFAT’s sales pitch implies.

Or, I could be wrong. Perhaps all we do value now is money. Maybe, our recent foreign policy does represent “New Zealand’s values”. If so, does that make Murray McCully our most valuable New Zealander?

I am currently in Canada teaching at the University of Ottawa. Some keen students with great discussions in class. But, it is freezing. Minus 28 the other night when I was out walking with a wind chill I would prefer not to remember. Actually, I do remember it!

There is another feeling in the air right now in Canada beyond the mix of extreme weather conditions and massive energy use. The Winter Olympics are imminent: Canada’s great sporting redemption!! Ice Hockey is number one with “Team Canada” feeling the weight of a nation with their own Richie McCaw, Sidney Crosby, an incredible athlete of whom Canadians are rightly proud. The red mittens with maple leaf designs are out in force! I might even buy a pair. Well…maybe…

But, and regardless of my pressing fashion concerns, the excitement present here cannot hide the reality that these Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, are built on a platform of abuse and exploitation, contrary to the lauded “Olympic Spirit”, presenting a gloss over an oppressive regime where human rights only exist to be trampled on and dismissed.

The Sochi Winter Olympics will be the most expensive in history. Putin and Co (mainly Putin) hope this will be an expression of the new and successful Russia proving to the world that the 1990s were an aberration. Mother Russia is back – strong and determined!

But, peel back the superficial embrace of excess, and the Games only highlight how willing the Russian elite is to squash human dignity and the environment in favour of two weeks in the Northern Hemisphere’s spotlight.

You will have heard about the June 2013 law change in Russia discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people. Putin has been incredible in his pre-games announcements linking LGBT individuals to paedophiles. His ignorance would astound, were it not so harmful.

My interest in LGBT issues led me to look into the Games further. What I found only compounded my concern. Human Rights Watch describes the lead up to the Games thus:

“But the monetary cost should not eclipse the significant human costs of preparations for the Games, which have been marred by exploitation, illegal detentions, and deportations of migrant construction workers engaged on Olympic venues and other sites in Sochi; forced evictions of Sochi residents and illegal land expropriations to make way for Olympics infrastructure; and harassment of journalists and civil society activists criticizing the preparations for the Games. Olympic construction has also compromised the health, safety, and property of many Sochi residents.”

How is it that this happens so easily? How does the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) permit this? Where is the proper oversight and accountability mechanisms to ensure that such a global event does not involve a huge human (and clearly in this case, environmental) cost?

But, wait, there’s more.

Things in Sochi are bad. Terribly so. But, they are worse in Qatar!

No, Qatar is not the host of the next Winter(!) or Summer Olympics. That would be ridiculous, right? I mean, who would play sport, any sport, in 50 degree temperatures in the desert?

Well, footballers, apparently. Qatar is the host of the 2022 Football World Cup. And, yes, a lot of the concern has been around conditions for the players and spectators: will this event will be held in winter or summer and will the Qataris have fully enclosed air conditioned stadia?

Until recently, though, very little was being said about the thousands of migrant workers brought into Qatar, primarily from South Asia to build these stadia. To build them in 50 degree temperatures. To die building them.

Through the work of The Guardian (watch the video that link takes you to) and advocacy groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch we know categorically that migrant workers are dying due to the extreme conditions they are working under. Working conditions are unconscionable, with living conditions being clearly inhuman and degrading. Payments are being withheld while there is essentially no real attempt by the Qatari government to oversee, inspect, or prosecute for abuse.

In what amounts to forced labour and modern day slavery, one of the world’s premier events chooses to celebrate humanity by denying the fundamental essence of human dignity in its treatment of migrant workers.

Qatar, like many countries in the Gulf, operates its migrant labour through what is called the “kafala” system. This is essentially a sponsorship system where employment and your legal status in the country is tied to your employer. If you don’t like your job, you can’t just get another one. Also, employers will both withhold passports and are responsible for arranging exit permits meaning that workers are often stuck in Qatar when they would simply prefer to go home.

Qatar, like Russia, is not a bastion of human rights protection. While Qatar is a member of the International Labour Organisation, it has signed very few of the relevant treaties promoting “decent work”.

But, are we surprised? Is it at all a shock to hear that both Russia and Qatar are like this? Frankly, no. Yes, I am outraged, but not surprised.

My real anger, though, is directed towards the IOC and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (“FIFA”). I know they are corrupt. Of course. But, their corruption does not absolve them of culpability.

Global sporting organisations such as the IOC and FIFA have a clear responsibility to protect and promote human rights. You might have heard about “business and human rights” or “corporate social responsibility”. Well, this is it!! Sport (even of the commercialised type) is a wonderful expression of what it means to be human and brings cultures together. For sport to actively ignore human rights is just plain wrong – in New Zealand we know this acutely.

Specifically, I believe that there should be certain baseline human rights expectations that a country must prove it is committed to before being granted these events. The IOC and FIFA (along with other global bodies) actually have an opportunity to improve human rights by tangibly seeking accession by countries to key international treaties.

Further, organisations should then have the correct oversight to ensure the kind of abuse we have seen in the lead up to Sochi and Qatar are avoided. Independent inspectors can ensure accountability and raise baseline standards across the planet. The cost can be borne by the host city – it is just part of the bid.

My hope is that these Winter Olympics and the disgrace that is Qatar will shine a light on the complicity of the IOC and FIFA. This is an opportunity. I would love to see a global movement forcing sporting organisations to spread their love of sport alongside a promotion of human rights and civil liberties.

So, I will cheer on the Kiwis and the Canucks competing at Sochi. I will also hope that the conflict in Dagestan and other parts of Russia will not raise its head through violent acts. But, I hope that something more comes out of the Games and that we demand in future global sporting events that not only bring us together, but also leave a lasting positive human rights landscape.

For my first blog of 2014, I’m going back to 2013. I know, I know – this blog is supposed to be progressive, not regressive. But, here goes.

A key issue in 2013 was the “Roast Busters” scandal. This disgrace revealed layers and layers of misogyny.

Well, I’ve just watched something that should be compulsory viewing for everyone, but particularly for members of my gender. Some of you will have already seen it – it’s been around for a while – but I saw it for the first time this week after an awesome friend put me on to it. Watching it, I felt like it was all about “Roast Busters” and the inadequate response of men in 2013 (and prior, of course).

“It” is an amazing video featuring Jackson Katz, PhD. He’s speaking at a TEDx conference about how gender violence is a men’s issue. Here are a couple of his early points:

How dominant groups are able to avoid introspection and scrutiny (indicating men here, but clearly relevant to other classes of privilege such as, say, some political parties…).

How men have been essentially erased from the discussion of “gender violence” by tagging it as a women’s issue.

This last point he illustrates both beautifully and chillingly using an exercise created by Julia Penelope, a feminist linguist. I imagine that this will be familiar to some readers already – I found it very compelling. The exercise shows how language can determine discourse. How quickly it is that violence is the fault of the victim, and, in particular, how the focus on violence shifts away from men, as the perpetrators.

“Mary was beaten by John” – technically the same information in the sentence, but using the passive voice (passive voice implying a sense of being acted upon, a sense of helplessness, perhaps?) and the focus has now shifted to Mary with John “almost off the end of our psychic plane”. Next:

“Mary was beaten” – John has dropped off altogether now. The next sentence he writes reflects a further change in the discourse informed by how the conversation has been framed in the domestic violence context, again implying a passive sense:

“Mary was battered” – where finally the sentence becomes:

“Mary is a battered woman” – back to the active voice, carrying with it a sense of possession, of owning the descriptor. Mary’s identity now, in the discourse, is that of a battered woman. The focus is on her, and she owns the problem – maybe, even, the problem is her fault to begin with. John, meanwhile, left the conversation a long time ago.

What does that sound like?

Personally, I think this exercise should be in the Radio Live staff employment handbook.

Really, though, it needs to be in everyone’s handbook. The rush to victim blame in this country, and internationally, is all too present. As Katz explains, though, asking questions about Mary will take us nowhere in resolving questions of violence. We need to talk about John.

But, it’s not just about John. It’s about us. How do we, as a society, produce men who are violent? What is in our structures and institutions that results in men and violence? Katz asks these questions and more, speaking with a contagious passion.

Katz also discusses what he calls the “Bystander Approach”: “A bystander is defined as anyone who is not a victim or a perpetrator”. He talks of tools and how men can change the discourse. Of how important it is to challenge the discourse in social settings – if you don’t, you become complicit in compounding and entrenching the discourse.

He uses the example of a poker game – men joking around, with no women present. One of men says something sexist, maybe in an off-hand way. Under this approach, the bystander speaks up: “hey, can we talk about something else – that’s offensive, it could be my wife or sister that you’re talking about.” Creating, what he calls, a “peer culture climate” where the abuse will be unacceptable – a cumulative consciousness leading to social change.

There is a lot more that Katz says. So, watch the video. Do it. Share it with your whanau, friends and work colleagues. Take up the bystander approach. Men in positions of power – take up Katz’s challenge: become real leaders, not just nominal ones. This country needs to be one based on compassion for each other as members of society and creating space for the lives of everyone – the male dominated discourse and thought isn’t working: we need a discourse that is both honest and genuinely representative of who we are.

Again, best wishes for the new year. Let’s hope that 2014 is both peaceful and transformative, in equal measure…

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/01/11/whats-with-men/feed/102013: International Affairshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/21/2013-international-affairs/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/12/21/2013-international-affairs/#commentsFri, 20 Dec 2013 19:03:21 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=38197Well, it is the end of the year. I wanted to buy into regular journalism practice (although I do not claim to be a journalist and nor do I claim to be at one with Cameron Slater) and do some sort of a review of 2013. I wanted to highlight some of the themes across international affairs over the last 12 months that have resonated personally for me. I will neglect many, so feel free to add your own highlights in the comments.

Note: Len Brown and Bevan Chuang is not an international affair for the purposes of this blog.

So, I am going to do this by continent, in no particular order.

_ _

Asia

For me, the most interesting and exciting continent this year. I am, however, biased having been based in Asia for the last few years.

Clearly China continues to be the focus of many geo-political experts. Of concern, though, is the increasingly aggressive dialogue over the islands in the East China Sea in dispute between Japan and China. This will surely continue to be an issue in 2014.

Of course, 2013 saw the very public trial and fall of Bo Xilai consistent with Xi Jining’s commitment to eradicating corruption from Chinese public life. Bo’s trial was remarkable for its huge international media access and almost unprecedented look into Chinese political scandal.

China continues to extend its “soft power” through commitments in Africa and the South Pacific, quietly (well, maybe not so quietly) building bridges and allies across the planet.

Towards the end of the year we have seen political upheaval again in Thailand. Fortunately this time around the protests did not result in the same violence seen in recent times. A large part of this has been the current government’s laudable approach in not calling the military in. Thailand will see fresh elections early next year and it will be interesting whether the current Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra, can convince the electorate that she is not her brother’s puppet (the former leader, now exiled, Thaksin).

The Philippines endured unheard of destruction in November this year. This has almost disappeared from the media discourse as huge, cataclysmic natural disasters seem to become regular events each calendar year.

Sri Lanka hosted CHOGM and apparently John Key was extremely strong on calling Sri Lanka to account for its human rights abuse during the civil war. Well, he talked to David Cameron about it over a drink.

Americas

The revelations of Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning have created ripples in this region that will carry far beyond 2013. Just this week we have seen an interim decision in New York indicating that the collection of data from telephone is probably unconstitutional. Next year we will see more of these law suits coming through – the fascinating question will be how the Obama administration will argue this litigation. On what basis will they justify the collection of this data?

US spying also annoyed the Brazilians. The impressive president of Brazil, Dilma Rouseff, refused to lie down and called the Americans on their bullying behaviour. Rouseff also represents a pleasing trend in Latin America seeing more female leadership in the region, including the recent re-election in Chile of Michelle Bachelet.

The Boston bombing was a tragic event occurring earlier this year. The incident shows the consequences of a disturbed dogmatism leading to the deaths and injuries of the innocent. The immediate response in the US to the bombings was extreme with the media coverage and so-called “experts” making immediate jumps to Al Qaeda connections permeating a culture of fear. Boston, though, has shown its strength as a community – I was there in July and heard many people talk of how the city felt a tighter collective sense after the tragedy.

2013 was also the year when Guantanamo Bay remained open.

Europe

The most boring continent for me in 2013 – even Silvio Berlusconi was off his game!

I am most interested in the on-going byplay between Russia and the EU (collectively and with individual countries). Most recently we have seen this playing out in the Ukraine. Putin continues to bully his neighbour, but the people of Ukraine themselves see a future west and unburdened by their former colonial masters. My sense is that Putin will not let this pass so easily…

As a human rights advocate, I continue to be concerned with the EU’s treatment of migrants. The EU presents to the world an example of a regional, collective response to irregular migration – a model that other regions may look to replicate, including our own region up through South East Asia. While we see incredible sharing of bio-data and information between member states in the EU, the entire focus is on border security with no primacy of human rights protection. Meanwhile, migration routes from North Africa by sea and from Turkey into the EU (Greece) are becoming more perilous with more deaths recorded each year.

The US – EU free trade agreement has been an on-going negotiation during the year. With similar arguments we are seeing in New Zealand around the TPPA, and particularly around state investor dispute resolution clauses, we may or may not see this agreement come to fruition in 2014.

Africa

Nelson Mandela’s passing was the seminal event of 2013. The undoubted political leader of our time.

The focus now in South Africa, as Jacob Zuma hinted at, is to achieve a sustainable socio and economic path for the people of South Africa. As a lawyer, I very much admire the South African Constitution as an amazing and progressive document. Already, we have seen incredible rights regarding developments in the courts through the use of that Constitution with an active judiciary creating groundbreaking remedies, empowered by the Constitution. But, for any change to be truly transformative, it has to be political. That can only come from a splitting up of the ANC creating a tangible voting option at the polls. Whether we see that soon, remains to be seen.

Unfortunately, though, the rest of 2013 saw continuing conflict in Africa. In Mali, the Central African Republic, and now South Sudan we are seeing terrible violence. I have been reviewing in particular the evens in the Central African Republic where the conflict is as senseless as it is terrifying.

Middle East

Syria.

Need I say any more?

The spectacular failure of any political consensus on how to resolve Syria only results in more Syrians being killed every day. The “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine has failed to materialize in the face of political expediency. Russia and China have been difficult to comprehend in their support of the Assad regime. The people of Syria deserve so much more. The question is, who will deliver?

On the flip side, we have seen backroom diplomacy work with Iran. This is a significant step and engaging with Iran will only lead to a more open and transparent Iran for its citizens. This is too great a country with its tradition of education and civil involvement to remain on the outside of the world.

Oceania

I’m not sure on my naming of continents, but this will do.

In Australia we have seen an election. The Labor Party self-imploded due to ego politics and really had no option other than losing in the end. Now, Australia has a Prime Minister who doesn’t think much of women, thinks Climate Change is all a joke, and is doing really well at p*ssing off Indonesia. The on-going treatment of asylum seekers in Australia is a disgrace and does nothing to promote Australia as a strong ethical leader in the region.

The TPPA negotiations have been held at a furious pace through the year. Reportedly, New Zealand is playing a strong role in assisting the US to push this through. With negotiations entirely in secret, as citizens we should be grateful for the stellar work of Jane Kelsey and others to keep this issue front and centre.

Across the Pacific, the “Pacific Plan Review” was provided to leaders by the former Papua New Guinea Prime Minister, Sir Mekere Morauta. At a superficial level, the review is calling for increased cooperation by the Island states. This follows other regional examples of multi-lateral collectivising for (primarily) economic and security concerns. This has to be in our interests and a truly independent and robust New Zealand Aid Programme should be able to contribute in a sustainable fashion, but our current Aid programme does not have the resources to be a decent player in the region.

Back in Aotearoa, we have a government falling apart with coalition partners who have been entirely discredited leading to John Key following Chemtrails. Chrony capitalism has been the theme of the year with not only bailouts to Steven Joyce’s mates, but also transfers of public wealth into private hands through the failed Assets Sales programme. We have more children living in poverty – an absolute stain on our country – but no significant policy response from a government bereft of ideas. If only we had an election soon…

_ _

So, that’s it. As I said, I am sure to have missed a lot! I know I have missed a fair few…let me know your own favourite international events over 2013.

It has now been several months since the public response to the GCSB legislation earlier this year, including public meetings where The Daily Blog played a central role in facilitating the debate.

Think back to those weeks: public outrage, prominent New Zealanders bringing well thought out and reasonable debate to a critical issue. New Zealanders actually trying to engage government! Democracy in action!

And, remember the government’s response?

Entirely dismissive.

“Snapper are more important. Democracy…what? You want to have a voice? Oh, just have a referendum, because we’ll listen to that. Oh, hang on…a referendum…ahhhh…”

Oversight? Accountability? Transparency? You silly little citizens…so naïve. Just trust the Dear Leader. If you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear.

But, rather than wither away and become irrelevant as the government would hope, recent global events confirm the call at the time from Labour and the Greens for a full public inquiry into the role of our security operations.

In fact, I see no reason why we cannot be the country that leads this discussion internationally.

In truth, this is about much more than the misunderstood term of “national security”. At the heart of this discussion lies a fundamental question. It is about your relationship as a citizen to the state: what power will you give the state to look into your affairs and the affairs of your fellow citizens.

It is also about the relationship we want our state to have internationally with our friends, and our enemies (potential or real!).

It is about human rights – the civil liberties that were fought for and our country was built on. Yet, the erosion of those rights and liberties is happening all too easily. We are missing a national conversation with real public engagement, unmotivated by fear but more properly driven by informed, rational discussion.

Sadly, this erosion reflects a global (well, western) trend. In this post 9/11 world, we have seen fear used as a weapon for increasing state action without effective oversight or transparency.

We have also seen a shift in geo-politics with the Anglo-US alliance weary of growing influence of the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) countries (and others too, of course). Coupled with exponential technological advances, the US in particular is keen to maintain its geo-political influence through using and dominating that technology.

Through the disclosures of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, US citizens are now learning that the National Security Agency (NSA) has almost had carte blanche access in the collection of information across the entire planet, and possibly also within the US. Attempts at oversight from Congress have been impotent. Americans are rightly questioning the role of the NSA and the parameters of its activities.

Let’s not forget the broader context here either.

There is Guantanamo Bay and the nature of the upcoming Military Commissions including the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others. The status of these detainees under US and international law, the restricted access to Counsel, the acquisition of evidence, and the entire framework set up around these Commissions set unfortunate precedents and are inconsistent with a strong rule of law approach.

Likewise, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles in targeted killings (ie, predator drones). Is someone sitting in a control room in Langley using a joystick a combatant for the purposes of international law? What are the boundaries now of international armed conflicts? By using these drones in Pakistan, Yemen, and Afghanistan, does the “War on Terror” have any territorial or temporal limits?

These are questions, fundamentally, about the power of the state over individuals: citizens and non-citizens. Traditionally, and in response to the wishes of the people, the law has sought to limit this type of power. But, recently, such powers have been augmented with overly broad and sweeping powers in the name of “national security” absent a real discussion (I accept that these issues are discussed constantly and in depth by experts, including special rapporteurs appointed by the UN, but I am talking about a broader, more public engagement).

Coming back to state approved overreach, let’s mention briefly the United Kingdom.

The recent detention of David Miranda, the husband of journalist Glenn Greenwald (formerly of The Guardian), was an abuse of power amid a flexible, but flawed, interpretation of terrorism. In attempting to intimidate Miranda and Greenwald, the UK authorities misused the particular legislation to curtail freedom of speech. The only good thing about this episode is seeing the vital role of an independent judiciary as we watch the action taken on behalf of Miranda proceed in the UK courts.

More recently, Australia has been getting its hands dirty. We have heard about spying on Indonesia, and this week the story is about East Timor (allegedly espionage for “commercial advantage”, which is interesting for us as our economic interests are now clearly perceived as coming under “national security” in our legislation).

The Australian Attorney-General also authorised a raid by Australia’s intelligence service on the Canberra office of the Australian lawyer representing East Timor in its claim against Australia surrounding the alleged espionage.

Laughably, the Attorney-General has said that the raid had nothing to do with disturbing or impeding the case. Is he serious? I think he actually might be. Regardless, it is a clear attempt to intimidate and is a questionable use of federal power under the auspices of “national security”.

In this same week there have been stories in the Australian media around the Abbott government’s concerns that there will be more leaks flowing from material held by Edward Snowden directly regarding Australia. Adam Bandt, the Deputy Leader of the Greens, had an interesting response: “if they have nothing to hide, then there is nothing to fear”.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. All members of the Five Eyes network.

In 2014, then, a public inquiry around the operations of our security and intelligence services needs to be squarely back on the agenda and demanded by New Zealanders in the lead up to the election.

Let’s not forget the protests around the passing of the GCSB legislation. Let’s not forget the energy and how New Zealanders were actually mobilized and engaged on this issue. That is the type of electorate we need and want – that is the democracy we should aspire to as more civil liberties are eroded and we have a government who refuses to represent us, but rather prefers to rule us.

In brief, an inquiry should take a comparative approach and review the procedures and oversights used by other countries. We should acknowledge the basis for why we need such services, and then simply create the best platform in the world for them to operate in our open society with appropriate checks and balances.

We can have the discussion. There is no reason why not. We have led the world before in being progressive, and we can do it again.

Also, I just want to mark the passing of Nelson Mandela. I want to thank his family and the people of South Africa for sharing him with the world. As a planet, we were blessed to have him. For a range of South African thoughts on Madiba, I encourage you to read the posts at the Daily Maverick.

“They blindfolded me, and bound my hands. My son was crying a lot as he did not understand what was going on. They then untied my hands so that I could pick him up. They took us outside and put us into a van – I knew it was a van because I could hear them shut the sliding door. They took me somewhere, I do not know where exactly, but the drive was not that long.

They took us inside a house. First, they separated me and my son. My son began to scream and cry again. They brought him back to me to keep him quiet.

They put a gun to my head and threatened me, again asking about [X]. They were also holding my son, my son was crying, I was crying. I begged them, and held their leg and asked them not to do anything. They were asking about [X] again and again.

They beat me, and then burned my leg with a scalding iron. This was extremely painful. My leg swelled up and there is a huge scar on my leg, a scar that is still infected and causing me pain. My son also seemed to have a fever. We received no medical care.

They touched me in a sexually bad way.”

I have lifted these paragraphs from a statement I took from a Sri Lankan asylum seeker I acted for in Bangkok. She is Tamil, from Batticaloa. Her son was two years old. Her captors were conducting enquiries on behalf of the Sri Lankan authorities.

These events occurred after the end of the conflict in Sri Lanka.

The events she deposes to are not extreme in any way. I have other paragraphs more graphic in detail. After acting for hundreds of Tamils, these are merely normal. Torture, enforced disappearance, sexual violence, extrajudicial killings…are all common themes in the narratives of Tamil refugees.

This is from the 2013 Human Rights Watch World Report:

“Sri Lanka made no progress in 2012 toward ensuring justice for the victims of numerous violations of human rights and the laws of war committed by both sides during the 26-year-long conflict between the government and the LTTE. These violations include the government’s indiscriminate shelling of civilians and the LTTE’s use of civilians as “human shields” in the final months of the conflict, which ended in May 2009.

The government continued to ignore the 2011 report of the panel of experts appointed by United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, which recommended establishing an independent international mechanism to monitor the government’s implementation of the panel recommendations, conduct an independent investigation, and collect and safeguard evidence.

In March 2012, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted a resolution finding that the government’s Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) did not adequately address serious allegations of violations of international law, and called on Sri Lanka to take all necessary steps to ensure justice and accountability. It requested that the government expeditiously present a comprehensive plan detailing the steps it had taken to implement the LLRC’s recommendations and to address accountability.

The Sri Lankan government responded by publicly threatening human rights defenders who had advocated for the resolution. In July, the government announced that it had adopted an action plan to implement LLRC recommendations. The plan vaguely calls for the government to look into civilian deaths and prosecute any wrongdoers. It sets out a 12-month timeframe to conclude disciplinary inquiries and 24 months for prosecutions. But the government proposal merely leaves responsibility for investigations with the military and police, the entities responsible for the abuses, using processes lacking in transparency.”

Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, John Key, was asked whether he would support an independent inquiry suggested by David Cameron:

“I’m not sure what that would achieve.”

Rather than accountability, John Key prefers impunity. He is content as long as “progress” is being made. Who cares if individuals responsible for gross breaches of international human rights and humanitarian law remain in positions of power and influence?

To the victors, go the spoils. To the victims, goes our milk powder.

I simply can’t see any basis for our election to the Security Council (but, we’ll get Sri Lanka’s vote!). This is a pathetic illustration of our current ability to be an independent and vigorous arbiter of international law. John Key and Murray McCully have abandoned our normal upholding of the importance of a multilateral rules based approach in favour of securing a commercial deal, an elephant, and setting up a new All Blacks fan club.

Not towards accountability. Not towards bringing perpetrators to justice. Not towards empowering survivors in any way. Not towards respecting international human rights law. Not towards enforcing international humanitarian law. Not towards implementing international criminal law.

Do you remember that joke at primary school? The one that goes: “what do you call a deer with no eyes?”.

Do I have to spell it out… “no eye deer”!

Well, this government is fast becoming that punchline.

For, and in spite of the economic reality across the country, this government is coming up with nothing new – it has “no idea”!

Nobody can deny that following the sweeping economic neo-liberal reforms carried out by the secret love-birds of Roger and Ruth (well, not so secret), our domestic economy has fundamentally changed. Although I am far too young and innocent to comment about this, it does seem to me that in light of the closed nature of our economy under the immutable Muldoon, change was inevitable especially with improvements in technology and the ultimate march towards globalisation.

However, the pace and extent of reform in New Zealand was extreme. Our rural economy was gutted, with less job options for school leavers. Meanwhile, a few people did extremely well out of privatisation and are now once again interested in pursuing another round of transferring public wealth into private hands. Surprise!

Today, and after almost thirty years of following this orthodoxy, we have an economy where most of the profits are siphoned off overseas, investment is focused in property while not stimulating enterprise, and there is little or no manufacturing with most unskilled workers being forced into precarious work.

This government’s fundamentalist adherence to an outdated economic ideology relies on a market that is not truly free. This religious adherence continues in spite of the evidence of the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. Indeed, this “free market” only reflects a structural privileging of the wealthy leaving ordinary New Zealanders without a hope in trying to achieve some sense of upward economic mobility.

Our inequality reality – not a “fantasy” as I recently read in a daily publication some of you may have heard of – is leading us, if we are not there already, to a social crisis. In face of such a reality, government needs to act. Otherwise, the point of governing becomes meaningless.

So, what are they actually doing?

Well, maybe we should cut them some slack as their Coalition of the (un)willing is falling apart. Banksy (not the artist) is in a spot of bother after it being clear that he solicited anonymous donations from Dotcom and Sky City. But, apparently, this still means it is ok for him to vote on legislation concerning Sky City…

Meanwhile, we have Mr Dunne, the great supporter of wholesale spying on New Zealanders, although not so good at keeping his Party’s status current. While I am, I suppose (no, I am), a proponent of proportional representation, I am disgusted that taxpayers have been paying the significant salary of Mr Peter Dunne. His political impotence must come home to roost in 2014.

But, the prime strategy of the National party, apart from the laissez faire leave it to the inequitable market, is to refuse to acknowledge there are any issues to be dealt with in the first place. The PM himself loves this approach – his dismissiveness to every issue makes you wonder if he ever gets concerned about anything?

We have seen this approach recently with Paula Bennett refusing the suggestion of the Children’s Commissioner to actually measure poverty and have an accurate picture of the situation we are facing.

I mean, why would the government want to know the reality? If you don’t know, you can say it doesn’t exist or that someone else’s research methodology is flawed. You then continue to deflect any real assessment of poverty causing factors by reverting to welfare bashing.

So, the government simply refuses to acknowledge the lack of access to upward economic mobility for ordinary New Zealanders and, consequently, to do anything about it.

Devoid of ideas, they are happy to sit back and blame everyone else. The only time we see the government actively participate is in pursuing crony capitalism – Rio Tinto, asset sales unwanted by New Zealanders, and now Chorus: all examples of further transfers of public money into private hands. But, the regular course is to do nothing at all to promote the economic and social wellbeing of New Zealanders as a whole.

In contrast, and in the face of this inertia, the progressive opposition has at least been trying to come up with something.

NZ Power (actually, I prefer the name “KiwiPaua”!), KiwiBuild, KiwiAssure, better access to apprenticeships, commitments to raising the minimum wage, progressive tax structures, and incentives for R & D are all at least ideas! We actually have something to discuss and to consider when we go to the polls, rather than this dismissive approach and a refusal to acknowledge our social and economic reality.

And, there is an international trend starting. Bill de Blasio’s win in New York City, achieved on a platform targeting the inherent inequality evident in NYC, “Tale of Two Cities”, is part of the broader and global appeal of progressive policies promoting the 99%.

Ed Miliband too is following this trend and, arguably, Sarkozy’s loss in France reflects dissatisfaction with the neo-liberal approach. Meanwhile, in Australia, the shambolic Labor Party did everything it could to reverse the trend.

In New Zealand, and speaking of Australians, there is no doubt that the Crosby Textor strategists will be working on the messages to undermine each and every idea put forward by the opposition. But, and unlike the 2011 election, Labour needs to hold firm. Communicating a strong and robust progressive policy to New Zealanders will get them to the Beehive.

When I left law school, I followed the path of least resistance. I went to work for a corporate law firm. I ended up on this path for a number of years.

Some of the work was mind-numbingly dull, like paginating thousands of documents. On the other hand, some of it was intellectually rigorous and fascinating. At other times, the work involved celebrities, sums of ridiculous amounts of money, and, as they say in the Speights ad, a box at Eden Park.

Of course, almost all of us were there because of our own privilege. I don’t think it is an unfair thing to say that we were generally unaware of that.

On the odd occasion, my work stepped away from acting for corporations and led me to being able to work for individuals. Whether it was a minor dispute, a defamation action, or a leaky building issue, I enjoyed using my skills to assist an individual at a difficult time for that person and could somehow alleviate that person’s concern, even if only in a small way.

So, and in an attempt to do more work at an interpersonal level, I decided to do something completely different. I went to work for refugees in North Africa in 2005.

From Auckland to Cairo. Sure. Easy. No worries…

When I got to Egypt, though, I instantly felt the relevance of the work I was doing. Providing free legal services to the asylum seeker and refugee population in Cairo was both tangible to the clients and to me. I remember straight away meeting an Ethiopian journalist who had undergone indescribable torture (with the scars to prove it), a Somali woman the victim of terrible sexual violence, and a young Sudanese man who had literally just fled the Janjaweed in Darfur. And that was just the beginning!

What struck me with each case as I continued to meet more refugees and hear increasingly terrible stories was a real sense of unfairness. Most of my clients simply had no recourse against their persecutors – they had no ability in their legal, social or political systems to challenge or confront the abuse. There was no option but to flee their country.

There was no justice.

In my mind, this is what the Refugee Convention provides. A sense of justice. Directly, the Refugee Convention is a human rights remedy – it is international law’s response to suffering human rights abuse in your home country and the legal remedy is one of protection.

But, on a more human level, it allows individuals to access some justice for being victims of persecution. Being a lawyer in this situation, seeing someone change from victim to survivor, is incredibly rewarding and empowering.

I don’t do refugee work because I am enamoured with the different countries and places I get to work in. I don’t do it because I meet clients and colleagues from all over the world with interesting backgrounds and dynamic experiences. I do it to redress injustice. To fight the unfairness that is unfortunately too evident and to use my skills to actually tip the scales of justice back in favour of the marginalised. And, I try to be aware of my privilege. To acknowledge that it is only through chance I was born into the family I was, and how that position of privilege has allowed me to do this work.

Currently, I am based in Hong Kong still working on refugee issues. Here too, injustice thrives. In this land of plenty, this monument to capitalism, refugees are forced to eat off HK$33 (NZ$5) a day. A flat white, meanwhile, costs HK$44.

But, then my mind wanders to Aotearoa. In our beautiful and plentiful country, injustice is also far too obvious. White privilege prevails, primarily in favour of one gender, with structural discrimination, the on-going impacts of colonialism, and we have had for almost thirty years this imposed and fundamentally flawed neo-liberal economic ideology. This ideology has, among other things, led to a precarious workforce where women clean our politicians’ excrement for what John Key would spend on buying a packet of golf tees next time he is at the Hills Golf Course in Queenstown.

But, I don’t see any evidence that this government cares about the unfairness people face right across New Zealand. I see no tangible steps towards addressing real issues of inequality. I see only facades at attempting to create a truly more diverse and environmentally sustainable economy across the regions, along with a constant and flagrant disregard for anything resembling democratic accountability.

So, I have decided this election is about fighting injustice. As a country, we need to embrace that. As Paul Krugman argues for the US, where is the new New Deal leading to more prosperity for more people? When will we once and for all refute this neo-liberal paradigm and again lead the world in progressive policy with egalitarianism at its core?

I know it has been out of the cycle for a while now, but I couldn’t let it go on without writing about John Key’s daring and groundbreaking trip to the United Nations, following the earlier groundbreaking in the UK.

Well, “daring” and “groundbreaking” it would seem IF AND ONLY IF you are a member of the mainstream media in this country. I woke up to read the headlines followed by glowing reports: “John Key’s scathing attack on UN failings”, “Key tells UN it needs reform”. They loved it. Good old kiwi boy taking on the big blokes…and all without a boat.

So, I did a surprising thing in that I was interested in what my nation’s representative would present to the meeting of the planet’s peoples, and I read the speech.

Scathing? Strongly worded? Trenchant?

Ermmm….

As others have indicated, the speech was clearly drafted by MFAT. This is entirely appropriate and ensures, provided it remains relevant, a consistent theme in our messaging at this forum. And, we do have a consistent theme in this forum: our support for a multilateral, rules based approach. This is the best outlook for a little country like Aotearoa and, in my view, that is something we should absolutely continue to advocate for.

For the most part, as a pragmatic person, I have no major problem with the PM’s address and agree with the calls for reform. It is the kind of speech I would expect John Key to make – at the UN and at this time.

That does not mean that I generally have no problem when John Key meets my (low) expectations, just that I see this speech for what it is and in its particular context. I said I was pragmatic, and it turns out that I am also somewhat cynical. [note to David Cunliffe, if asked to comment, suggest you take John Key’s first dismiss then inane comment approach: “I’m not fazed by it and feel that most kiwis find the décor at the UN quite distracting.”]

Absolutely, there are specific points that could have improved the speech, and Kennedy Graham of the Green party has raised these. I agree. But, my point here isn’t about the content.

One thing on content, though, that did strike me was the irony evident throughout his speech. Suddenly, we see John Key taking on this “fighting for the little guy” persona, completely at odds with his domestic reality and proven track record of being subservient to the big guy. Corporate welfare anyone?

But, overall,…Mr President…nothing dramatic…nothing out there…Mr President…the same old messages…AND…members of this most General of Assemblies, we’d also like your vote to put us on the Security Council, please.

There certainly wasn’t anything groundbreaking.

Well, not according to the NZ mainstream media! They were blown away by the sheer bravura of our dear leader to stand up there in front of everyone with such damaging and revealing commentary on the ineffectiveness of the UN.

Such pathos! Syria?! The UN can’t sort this. Send in JK! (note: “JK” = John Key, not John Kerry, not John Kirwan, not Steven Joyce – common mistakes, I know.) I didn’t see any reference to JK’s “scathing attack” on CNN, but maybe I missed it.

One of the Herald reporters even tweeted a photo of JK as he stood up in the General Assembly “John Key’s up!”.

This struck me as exceptionally sycophantic. Rather than provide the analysis and scrutiny of the comments of our national representative in this international forum at a level we are entitled to from our media, we instead see a form of idol worship.

Even the most superficial attempt at research would place the PM’s speech in a more appropriate context. Calls for reform at the UN are nothing new, and New Zealand has been a consistent voice on changing the Security Council.

Where is the reporting of the PM’s New York visit that is substantive, analytical, and relevant? How do voting New Zealanders across the entire country get to assess this performance?

As we head into an election, the simple point is that the media needs to lift its game.

Despite my lament, my sense is that our media are genuinely under a lot of pressure: one has to attend events, tweet about it, write online copy, retweet, prepare a TV item, Facebook it, write an online update, do your live TV feed, tweet some more, get your Piers Morgan haircut, tweet the haircut…all while resources are being withdrawn. I get that it’s not easy.

But, this country needs a mainstream media hungry for accountability. Woodward and Bernstein! If we are to be an effective democracy, especially in a country without a real check on executive power apart from the ballot box, that wonderful power to vote needs to be informed. Idol worship doesn’t cut it.

Meanwhile, current Security Council member, Australia, has had an election.

I wanted to write a full post on this: I despair. Tony Abbott as Minister for Women’s Affairs? I find it deplorable and call on the women of Australia to rise up! If you haven’t already, then watch this.

David Cunliffe’s appointment as leader of the Labour Party has not only reinvigorated that party, but has also given a significant and much needed jolt of energy to the political discourse in this country.

In case you hadn’t noticed, fellow voters, Election 2014 is now categorically and undeniably ON!

In previous posts, I have pursued the issue of accountability. Or, more accurately, the lack of accountability and this government’s cavalier attitude to our representative democracy. To strengthen accountability systems, I am a firm believer in participatory processes following an organic “bottom up” rather than an autocratic, and patronising, “top down” delivery.

Well, how good was that Labour leadership race? QED, methinks! Although lacking in gender diversity, and no doubt other flaws that will be reviewed given the debut of this new system, the race represented a wonderful bottom up realisation of who Labour Party members actually want to lead their party. This new process was in and of itself a clear rejection by the membership of the Labour caucus’s previously tyrannical control on power. This revolution from the membership led to the right result.

Described by some as a US style “Primary” race, the leadership contest re-engaged many New Zealanders with Labour and politics in general. We often complain of apathy, so engaging more of our citizens in the political process has to be a good thing.

Of course, John Key’s dismissive reaction to Cunliffe’s victory was as predictable as it was lacking in substance. The National Party, and the Act Teapot Party (brought to you by Dilmah), will be worried. They can see an opponent who will actually be able to articulate policies that the voting public can understand and contrast with those espoused by this government serving narrow interest groups. Already, we are seeing the strategy of labelling Cunliffe as an extreme leftist, something that is not borne out by his political history, his recent public statements nor, critically, by the Labour Party policy platform itself.

So, Cunliffe & Co need to get to work. Others more experienced and smarter than me have written about Cunliffe’s strategy in the weeks and months ahead. I agree with Stuart Nash’s TDB piece this week illustrating his own parliament experience. Isolating weak government ministers will place pressure on the PM and we have seen that he does not respond well when things do not go his way.

Already, too, we are seeing a smart pluralist communications strategy starting with the launch of Cunliffe’s tilt at the leadership in his New Lynn electorate office. The leadership race brought Cunliffe increased media visibility and we have seen that continue as he has been on our TV and computer screens including appearing on this Blog as Cunliffe reaches out to the wider socially progressive audience. As Bomber has argued, social media will be an important plank in any successful communications platform especially in reaching out to and mobilising younger voters.

But, and going back to my bias for participatory approaches, a critical aspect in this campaign will be Labour listening to New Zealanders. Rather than presume, the researchers and pollsters need to be out there to clue in to the issues that people want to see resolved. This also needs to include a very frank review of what happened at the disastrous last election: how did Labour get it so wrong? Who are the 800,000 registered voters who didn’t vote? Why didn’t they vote? Again, you can probably guess the answers, but to get the right answers, Labour needs to actually listen to the people across the entire country.

As for me, I’ll be listening as David Cunliffe continues to outline his vision for a socially progressive Aotearoa. I want to hear how he will make this country better for more people.

We cannot continue to be a country with such a stark and growing rate of inequality – so stark that this is one of the few things we seem to be world leaders on these days. Our government should be pursuing long term policies that reduce inequality, target the 270,000 children living in poverty, prioritise and stimulate a diverse economy less reliant on (but still supportive of) our primary industries with job creation at its core, and focus on helping more New Zealanders achieve upward economic mobility. Instead, and as I have said before, we have a government implementing short term fixes caused by an addiction to an economic ideology proven fundamentally flawed following the Global Financial Crisis (and the rescue of Merrill Lynch, by the way).

This is an amazing and bountiful country. Throughout our history we have proudly punched above our weight. Well, recently, we’ve left the gym behind as we have accepted mediocrity and a lack of accountability from our political elite. No more. It’s time to get back into training. A better country and future awaits.

In brief, the case is about the impact of the “In Work Tax Credit” in the universally maligned “Working for Families” package. I say “universally maligned” as nobody seems to really understand how the package works, including IRD, and it appears you need a PhD to get even close to figuring it all out with its myriad of permutations, implications and calculations.

Well, it so happens that Dr Susan St John of Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) does have a PhD and she, along with her colleagues at CPAG, view the package as inherently discriminatory and inconsistent with any effective strategies to eradicate the stain of child poverty in this country.

CPAG’s argument – inarticulately summarised here – is that Working for Families unfairly denies children with unemployed parents the same subsidy provided to children similarly situated, but with parents in work. In essence, this amounts to $60 less a week for 230,000 children in Aotearoa (according to CPAG information).

At the time of going to the Court of Appeal and as I have quoted before, CPAG succinctly described this as 230,000 children who “do not enjoy the same tax-funded support to eat well, keep healthy, warm and dry, and to participate in school activities and sport as others”.

That’s the case. Right there. The State – our government, those elected to represent all of us – effectively punishing children for having parents not in work.

The Attorney General’s response, determined before Mr Finlayson’s misogyny reared its ugly head in recently referring to Dame Anne Salmond as “shrill” (would he have said that about a man?!!), was that the policy incentivises work and getting people off benefits.

To win, CPAG had to convince the Court of Appeal that the Working for Families package was (1) discriminatory (in that there was an advantage between one group and another comparator); and (2) that the discrimination could not be reasonably justified (more specifically, that it was a “reasonable limitation” on the right of freedom from discrimination).

In my earlier post, I argued that in taking a child rights centred approach based on Article 3 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (where in every decision the child’s best interests shall be the primary consideration) the Working for Families package could not be justified. How is it in a child’s best interests to punish that child for the State perceived indolence of the parents?

I also wrote (as there is nothing better than quoting yourself): “But, I am not sure this approach will win out in the Court. I think this will all be about “work”, and not at all about the children, with the economy being our true State religion.”

Unfortunately, I was right.

While the Court of Appeal did hold that the In Work Tax Credit was discriminatory, it ultimately held that the “work incentive objective” justified the discrimination.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal only explicitly refers to the Convention on the Rights of the Child once. Disappointingly, there is absolutely no attempt to take a child rights centred approach. The Court of Appeal instead prefers to fall back on comfortable Chicago school territory in placing a premium on work.

This approach completely ignores the compounding effect of child poverty and the logical reduction in economic mobility on the children missing out as a result of this policy. Quite simply, child poverty begets adult poverty. We are all poorer for it, in the end.

Now, I am not trying to be naive, and I do think there is a legitimate and rational role in government trying to incentivise people to work. But, not where children are punished. The long term outcomes of pursuing such a punitive policy do nothing for us as a country and only serve to drive further the wedge of inequality we are seeing more in our society.

So, where does this leave us?

First, Working for Families needs to be discarded. It simply does not work and has led to no tangible reduction in child poverty. This current government should repeal it and the opposition parties should be public in condemning Working for Families (the package was brought in by Labour).

Second, hats off to CPAG. Although ultimately unsuccessful at the Court of Appeal stage, CPAG represents civil society holding the government to account against human rights standards.

This is extremely important. As we have seen, this government has shown and continues to show a complete disregard for the concept of a representative democracy. As New Zealanders, we generally prefer not to kick up a fuss, but I feel that there simply has to be more scope for strategic litigation in our courts. This is particularly so in combating inequality: we need a pluralist strategy to achieve egalitarianism, not just through political action (ie, relying on a political party platform), but through civil society mobilisation, public education, public discontent, and smart strategic litigation.

Third, this case highlights the government’s terrible attitude to being tested in the courts. The Crown has tried every little procedural trick it could to drag out being scrutinised and overcome CPAG with its minimal resources (litigation ain’t cheap). The Crown supposedly has a principle of being a model litigant, and one would assume that would include being happy to have one’s policy and legislation tested against fundamental human rights. In future, the Crown should act as a genuine model litigant and welcome debate through public and judicial scrutiny.

Fourth, the Court of Appeal is not our highest court. While this court was not brave enough to act as a genuine check on a flawed and discriminatory government policy, the Supreme Court possibly beckons.

Will Child Poverty win again or will we actually do something about it?

It has been an incredible couple of weeks. Fascinating. From spying to Shearing, we have seen it all.

At the centre has been the GCSB Bill (now, of course, an Act, supported by the ACT party). The Bill’s introduction was characterised by John Key’s dismissive approach to any attempt at constructive dialogue despite the very rational calls from eminent citizens and entities. Finally, he was forced to engage when we saw his now almost mythical “performance” on Campbell Live.

This “performance” was notable for many reasons, none of them really addressing the substantive or procedural concerns around the Bill. When he did deal with content (both in terms of the Bill and the actual content of your communications), the Prime Minister got it wrong. Not to worry, though, a quick letter to the Herald will remedy that and we can take the PM’s assurance that he will not “in the first instance” grant a warrant to spy on the content of our communications.

To make sure we get it, the PM repeats this in the House during its final reading. He will not “in the first instance” grant a warrant to spy on the content of our communications. Just to repeat, not “in the first instance”. I wonder if the spooks will figure that one out? Just ask twice!

Now, to be clear: this is not how lawmaking should be done. If that is your intent, then articulate this in the legislation. An assurance in this context is completely meaningless: there is no transparent public oversight of the use of that assurance, and is too limited in its scope. Yes, such pronouncements in the House when courts come to interpret legislation can be helpful, but when will courts ever get near this? This really was amateur hour when it comes to making legislation.

Back to the “performance” on Campbell Live and this rather cavalier approach to lawmaking was clearly evident. At one incredible moment, the Prime Minister told John Campbell that it didn’t matter how he got there, whether by taxi, bus or Crown Car (this is not a direct quote), the important point was that he got there.

Well, to me that sounds incredibly Machiavellian – the end justifies the means. How instructive! This is how John Key deals with issues – he just wants them resolved and off his table yesterday (he should have checked the table a little better when he and Bansky were knocking back the PG Tips in that Newmarket Cafe…).

But, again, this is not how lawmaking should be done. You cannot rush it. It requires time, public consultation, consideration and discussion, especially when it comes to legislation of such import with the restriction on civil liberties and the increased exercise of state power.

Personally, I am a fan of process when it comes to lawmaking. I fundamentally believe it is through a commitment to process will take us a long way to ensuring fairness. But, this government isn’t interested in fairness. It isn’t interested in being accountable. It isn’t interested in representing us or engaging with us. It is only interested in exercising a paternalistic control over our country serving a narrow ideology proved fundamentally flawed by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

I will give credit to the PM for one thing, though. This has been the first official use of product placement in developing our legislation: “this statute is brought to you by Norton Anti-Virus”. This is genius. An entirely new revenue stream. Think of the possibilities! Maybe McAfee should sponsor the TICS Bill? We don’t need to sell our assets after all!

Unusually for a piece of New Zealand legislation, the passing of the GCSB Bill took place in an entirely apposite international context: the revelations of Edward Snowden, the verdict against Chelsea Manning, the Congressional attempt to reign in the NSA via the Amash Amendment (defeated), and the detention of David Miranda at Heathrow Airport (including the confiscation of his property) under Schedule 7 of the UK Terrorism Act. The Miranda detention is, in my view, a reprehensible abuse of state power entirely unintended by the legislation. It has a significant impact on the ability of journalists to do their work in holding the state to account and, accordingly, is an unreasonable restriction on freedom of expression.

These international events show a slippery slope towards an East German inspired relationship between a government and its people. Yet, this is the same slope we are so desperate to join through this rushed and poorly drafted piece of legislation.

On the flip side, the public meetings held around the GCSB Bill both in Mt Albert and the Auckland Town Hall represent a turning point in the history of this government. The energy at those meetings was fantastic. That was democracy at work and an example of concerted civil society action. We need to see more civil society and public engagement going forward no matter who is in government.

Following the passing of the GCSB Bill into law, we have almost immediately seen David Shearer’s resignation. Others have written and will write of the inevitability around this decision, laudable as it is. Others will also comment on Shearer’s style as a leader and the supposed charisma needed to run a successful political party.

But, for me, the problem with Labour under Shearer is that I never knew what Labour actually stood for. (Is it just me?) What is Labour’s platform? What is their political philosophy? What are their key messages on core issues around inequality? Does the Labour party even pretend to believe in egalitarianism any more?

That will be the challenge for Labour’s new leader. Tell us the platform. Give us the message. Who knows, if it is a good one, some folks might even vote for you.

Somehow I missed John Key’s interview on More FM when he disclosed the real threat to our nation – the Al Qaeda Yemen/NZ connection. I guess I should listen to More FM more often for groundbreaking disclosures by our Prime Minister.

The obvious point made by many is that he is fear mongering – a typical hawkish tactic of the conservative movement to justify a reduction in our civil liberties and to negate further debate. But, I am interested in debating it. And, it made me think of the following questions for Mr Key:

If we are already monitoring these individuals, how would the proposed legislation augment that monitoring?

Why haven’t there been any prosecutions?

In disclosing this, haven’t you now divulged to these individuals that they are being monitored? Won’t this disclosure compromise the current investigation and possibly impact on the potential to prosecute?

Indeed, were another individual – say, a member of our intelligence services – to disclose the same information, that we are monitoring a group of suspected terrorists and went so far as to identify where they were training and with which suspected group, wouldn’t this be considered a breach of national security? Any indication as to who, how, when or why we are gathering intelligence could be said to compromise the effectiveness of our intelligence and the consequent ability to safeguard our security.

Yes, I am being provocative – I am not seriously suggesting JK has committed an offence. But, I do find the contradiction interesting: how what one individual might say is a breach of national security in contrast to when the Prime Minister discloses the same material for the purposes of political expediency. I guess that is him telling us about the “real world”.

The “real world”, though, appears to be one under constant and covert surveillance. Cue: Edward Snowden, like John Key, a discloser of national secrets and sometime resident of Hawaii. Different context: yes. Different outcome: you bet.

After the initial disclosure by Edward Snowden, we’ve had the further unravelling of the extent of this spy network with the on-going excellent investigative journalism from Glenn Grenwald. And, then, after not feeling the love in Hong Kong, Snowden does a Tom Hanks impression turning into Viktor Navorski living in the “Terminal”.

At the same time, the Obama administration – “Change you can believe in” – has been relentlessly pursuing Mr Navorski even forcing the plane carrying another head of state to land in another country all together.

Along with the very human drama of this story, it raises questions that are ethical and moral in nature: the scope of state surveillance on citizens and non-citizens alike; how states share that information; the outsourcing of more and more state functions to private contractors; your exposure (to surveillance and to crime) as more of your life is lead online; whistle-blowing; open accountability for intelligence gathering; checks and balances against executive action; freedom of the press …(there are more, but I need to stop, don’t I?)

These questions are equally relevant to us in New Zealand.

And while these discussions will continue, what is the position right now of Snowden under international law? When the US demands his return for prosecution, what is the Russian Federation actually bound to do by international law?

First, let’s look at extradition law.

The US and Russia do not have an extradition treaty, so there is no explicit obligation for Russia to return him following a request from the US.

Even if there were, extradition law has historically contained a “political offence” exception where a state could refuse an extradition request on the basis that the individual had committed an offence purely political in nature. That would apply in the present case, so Russia would be able to rely on that exception.

It is of course highly hypocritical that the US is so “disappointed” in Russia’s refusal to play ball given its own history on refusing extradition requests (see: Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian, and Noam Chomsky speaking at an event in Geneva recently).

So, on the extradition issue, there isn’t really an argument. As Richard Falk points out, “It’s the law, stupid”.

But, what about asylum?

In a previous post, I outlined the essential requirements for obtaining refugee status under the 1951 Refugee Convention. In this case, the key question is whether there is a reasonable chance that the treatment that Edward Snowden will receive on return to the US will amount to “being persecuted” for expressing his political opinion, an opinion that the US government should not be able to conduct almost unfettered and covert surveillance on its citizens without the public being aware of that ability.

In other words, will his prosecution lead to persecution? Just to be clear, the Refugee Convention does not normally protect those fleeing prosecution – the “exclusion” clauses will apply where war criminals and other serious non-political criminals are not entitled to refugee status.

Some of the evidence in favour of this argument is the treatment of Bradley Manning. Snowden’s lawyers will no doubt argue that he faces the same treatment, which some describe as torture (physical and/or psychological), or possibly cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.

Snowden would also argue that Manning’s sentence – potentially a cumulative sentence of 136 years – is a disproportionate response to the disclosure tipping this towards the persecutory end of the scale.

The counter argument is that states must be able to enforce the parameters of classified information. This is, and let’s be realistic here, fundamental. Snowden knew what he was getting in for – he signed confidentiality agreements and at all times was acutely aware that the material was classified and essential to national security. It’s not his job to disclose this to the public – that rests with elected officials who can conduct inquiries, etc.

Frankly, the asylum issue is not so clear cut – I feel there are good arguments both ways and I am sure the eventual outcome will be dictated more by politics than the law.

But, some things are undeniable. Out of all of this, there is one, clear lesson that I want to leave you with:

I was fortunate to be able to attend the well organised and inspiring urgent meeting against the GCSB Bill on Thursday night. So, hats off to the organisers and great to see the live streaming through this site – I love the technology stuff (and very apt, given the topic, allowing for additional surveillance of the issues).

I also use the word “inspiring” deliberately. It was. I think that anyone in the room would agree with me. There was a palpable energy, an energy that I have been desperately searching for, and found on that cold mid-winter night in Owairaka: the energy of collective dissent.

Rightly, people have had enough. We have had enough of a country denied a real and robust democracy. We have had enough of a government with no effective checks or balances. We have had enough of a government acting with impunity on the order of foreign officials. We have had enough of being denied a tangible role in the values and principles that we as a society wish to stand for.

In paraphrasing Dame Anne Salmond on Thursday night, we need to remind our politicians that they are elected to represent us, not to rule us.

This is our Muldoon moment – again borrowing from one of the speakers, the Chair Sir Edmund Thomas – but this time there is no Marilyn Waring to cross the floor. It is up to us to take that challenge to stand up for what we demand: an effective and representative parliament accountable to all New Zealanders, not just the influential elite with boxes at Eden Park.

For me, the meeting on Thursday night was part of a genuine and developing social movement in Aotearoa. Sure, this social movement has been around in differing forms, but Thursday represents a vital moment in confronting this exceptional political arrogance.

Why? Because, for real and substantive change to occur, dissent in and of itself is not enough. To achieve that change, we need to mainstream dissent.

Thursday is part of this. Thursday saw us mainstream (through a livestream…) the wider dissent at this government’s rule by fiat.

All of Thursday’s speakers were excellent. Each was articulate, prepared, intelligent, and rigorous in opposition to the proposed legislation.

Without meaning to detract from the other speakers, I felt that Dame Anne Salmond in particular spoke to me as a citizen and given my own concerns around a lack of accountability in this government. She reminded us as to the importance of our fundamental rights, how these were fought for by our forbearers, and how our democracy will have failed us if this Bill is passed.

In support of her concerns, she referenced the recent New Zealand Law Society report to the United Nations. The New Zealand Law Society? You can’t get more mainstream!

Well, the New Zealand Law Society clearly contains avid readers of this blog. The report highlights the Law Society’s concerns around the erosion of the protection of fundamental human rights contrary to the rule of law and the over-reliance by our Cabinet on executive orders (that is, essentially making laws that do not go through the full parliamentary legislative law-making process).

Like the Law Society, I am very concerned at the amount of legislation being passed under urgency vitiating proper public engagement. For, what is a democracy without robust debate? There is no democracy without opinion.

It is undeniable that this government is completely dismissive of the ideals of an accountable and participatory democracy. We’ve seen the removal of judicial review rights, a disproportionate infringement on the right of freedom of expression to appease corporate interests, threats against the Human Rights Commission when it does its job, and an attempt to extend almost unfettered surveillance of our own citizens.

The social movement present last Thursday night needs to counter this. But, for it to work, this movement needs to be inclusive and creative.

Not only do we need to mainstream our dissent, but we need to see a new form of activism engaging a younger (some might incorrectly say “more apathetic”) group of New Zealanders. What are we doing to reach those people? How do we, in Aotearoa, use online activism? Where is the App that thousands can use to tweet/email their MPs at once? Where is the platform for young New Zealanders to learn that they have power in a democracy?

These are questions that require an activism beyond mass protest. Protest is essential, and I endorse and support the nationwide protests this weekend, but I also feel we need to look to new, creative means of dissent. As always, I am an inherent contradiction: we need dissent, we need to mainstream it, and then we need to create a new form of it!

Well, let’s get going…

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/27/mainstreamingdissent/feed/2Rudderless Politicshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/13/rudderless-politics/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/07/13/rudderless-politics/#commentsFri, 12 Jul 2013 21:17:15 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=22413Despite the title of this post, I am not writing about the America’s Cup.

I am writing about the goings on across the ditch with K Rudd’s return to the position of Prime Minister. For those of us who follow Australian politics, his return and manner of such a return was not a surprise – it was entirely in keeping with his often divisive and ego driven political history. (On Julia Gillard and the incredible challenges she unfairly faced, I recommend reading this excellent piece in the New York Times.)

Following an earlier failed attempt to unseat Gillard, Rudd was all across the Australian media saying that was it – no more leadership challenges! He could not have been clearer in his denials.

But, of course, this is politics! It is a different game and times change, and after Rudd saw the new Superman “Man of Steel” trailer, he put on that cape to race in to save the Australian Labor Party!! “Truth, justice and the fair dinkum Aussie Way!!”

And, you know what? He might just do it.

Well, save the ALP. I’m not sure about the fair dinkum Aussie way…

In what pundits are calling the “Rudd Honeymoon”, Labor has made considerable ground in the polls. In the latest Newspoll results (9 July 2013, available at The Australian) and taking into account the preference vote (ie, the two party vote), Labor is now 50-50 with the Liberal/Nationals Coalition. This is a massive turn-around from only a few weeks ago. Further, Rudd is significantly ahead on the preferred Prime Minister stakes.

Of course, there are a number of factors behind this. The “honeymoon” glow itself, with voters excited about a change (albeit a return) in leadership personality; voters faced with the reality of a government including Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey and Co; and the relative on-going economic prosperity in Australia along with several other relevant matters.

But, sadly, we have also seen K Rudd turn to a familiar target, and one that bizarrely seems to have a disproportionate effect in Australian federal elections: refugees.

This past week the Australian Government has announced a raft of tougher steps in its asylum processing, while thousands languish in immigration detention both in Australia and in territories where Australia has out-sourced its human rights obligations.

One of the mouthpieces in this recent attack has been Foreign Minister Bob Carr. Senator Carr has been repeating the same mantras we have heard in previous election cycles – this is about people smuggling, the refugees are “queue jumpers” and that most of the refugees are coming to Australia for economic advantage. Most recently, Carr has said that his officials are reporting to him recent arrivals from Iran claiming asylum but really seeking work opportunities in Australia.

The mantra, though, has no factual basis. As I wrote in an earlier post, over 90% of arrivals by boat have been determined to be genuine refugees meeting a strict and difficult test under Australia’s Migration Act and the Refugee Convention showing a fear of being persecuted (that is, serious harm plus a failure of state protection).

Other refugee advocates have been more pointed in rejecting Carr’s language. In particular, Julian Burnside QC – one of Australia’s leading human rights lawyers – called Carr a “bigot” and said that he was “talking through his hat” with a complete absence of facts to support his claims.

The intention, though, is clear.

In targeting refugees as the “other”, by using language that paints all refugees (despite the diversity within this group) with the same brush as being devious and subversive, Carr and Rudd are setting a platform for yet more punitive rhetoric against these individuals fleeing persecution. The shabby and undisciplined result is criminalising this group of survivors and punishing them for actually taking the steps to leave a situation of human rights abuse.

For instance, the Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare recently called for refugee camps to be set up in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia (see The Age). Yep. Refugee camps. Brilliant, forward, out-of-the-box thinking there…

Refugee camps, which are really a form of human warehousing, only breach human rights. They do nothing to actually promote human dignity nor provide any substantive form of protection. This is a discredited policy response and shows the lack of focused thinking on the issue.

As I have argued elsewhere, a constructive regional approach is needed where cooperation, and not punishment, is the mantra. For me, as someone who has worked in the region, a key factor in onward movement to Australia is the lack of rights for refugees in Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia. In each of these countries, refugees are illegal and liable to arrest, detention and deportation. The starting point needs to be legal stay in these countries with temporary, renewable visas while asylum claims are processed.

But, such an approach takes a lot of work. While I know that states are working together behind the scenes (see, for example, the Regional Support Office, although I am yet to see anything tangible from that endeavour), in public it is much easier to target and vilify the refugees.

What really upsets me, though, is how politicians are rewarded for it. Yet again we are seeing in Australia a federal election where asylum seekers are a key issue and the goal is not to suggest real solutions in a rights regarding way, but it is to directly punish a group of human rights victims for a political benefit.

Maybe, Julian Burnside QC’s choice of language is right: underlying all of this is bigotry. It is hard to avoid that conclusion when we see such language from both the Australian Government and the Opposition.

So, be ready as the rhetoric is ramped up as the election gets closer. Will Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott protect the fair dinkum Aussie way for everyone…or will they race each other to the bottom in denigrating refugees and asylum seekers?

In a risky attempt to inarticulately impersonate Tom Friedman, I write this from Istanbul, the scene of recent clashes between protestors and police.

While not an Arab Spring moment, these demonstrations include similar statements from the disenfranchised and marginalised speaking out against the use of State power absent effective accountability mechanisms. I feel it is part of a larger theme we are seeing across the world and something that we too in New Zealand need to embrace, in our own way and relevant to our own context.

To backtrack, the protests began on 28 May around a government decision to develop Gezi Park in Taksim Square, but soon mushroomed into something much more across the entire country with additional demonstrations in solidarity, harsh crackdowns by the Police, and Turks confronting the underlying issues of where their country is going and the kind of leadership they desire from their politicians.

Gezi Park is a small area part of the larger Taksim Square suburb popular with many as a green public space in a densely populated city. The government, though, has approved the development of Gezi Park to build a replica of Ottoman-era barracks along with a Mosque.

For those at the protests, therefore, their involvement most directly speaks to a fundamental issue. Although often seen as dull and entirely unsexy, that issue is actually always surrounded with controversy and intrigue. It is, of course, town planning!

Driving around here, you can see that Istanbul is full of new construction. In the rush to capitalise on the economic boom in Turkey, the government has created the literal and figurative space for a constant renewal of Istanbul. There is the building of a new bridge across the Bosphorous joining the two continents of Europe and Asia, a new airport project with the hope of making Istanbul rival Heathrow for the volume of air traffic, and the constant changes to the Istanbul landscape. (If you are interested, check out a radio recent piece on Monocle 24 about Istanbul’s growing pains.)

While there are clear improvements to infrastructure, and more is needed, what is lacking is a transparent and principled basis on which any planned development can be scrutinised. There is no tangible ability for citizens to challenge development, and extremely little regard for any historical or environmental concerns.

I understand that there is also a very strong and prevalent ethnic issue here, coupled with familiar issues around economic inequality. Many of the proposed developments will have a disproportionate impact on the poorer Kurdish communities. Without the ability to properly challenge this impact, the poor are inevitably pushed further out of the city exposed to more precarious work and lifestyle options.

The response to the development for Gezi Park, though, goes beyond town planning and represents the culmination of a frustrated citizenry denied the ability to be involved in any decision-making.

Of course, this speaks to the concern around the increasingly conservative and dictatorial nature of the Erdogan government. This is only compounded by the violent and emphatic police response to the dissent we have seen in Gezi Park and across the country, in stark contrast to the protests in Brazil and the Brazilian government’s belief in the right to express such dissent.

Prime Minister’s Erdogan’s response is that his party, the Justice and Development party (AKP), has won the last three elections in Turkey and has clear support for their economic and socially conservative policies. It was in The Economist (June 22, 2013, p 16), though, where I felt this was best rebuffed:

“In part this is a matter of rules and institutions to constrain a leader’s power and to allow the aggrieved to find redress. These should include a robust account of citizens’ basic rights, independent courts to enforce them and free media to monitor them. …

The basic idea of a democracy is that the voters should pick a government, which rules as it chooses until they see fit to chuck it out. But although voting is an important democratic right, it is not the only one. And winning an election does not entitle a leader to disregard all checks on power. The majoritarian world view espoused by Mr Erdogan and leaders of his ilk is a kind of zombie democracy. It has the outward shape of the real thing, but it lacks the heart.”

For me, this “zombie democracy” also applies in New Zealand. While some commentators refer to the National Party’s mandate having won the last two elections, I start to think of accountability and question how accountable our parliamentarians actually are?

There is a list of things that worry me. The volume of legislation passed under urgency (by the current National and previous Labour governments) denying any sort of Select Committee process (and platform for public submission), the lack of an effective fundamental human rights framework, the removal by Parliament of rights to judicially review government action when it suits them, the abrogation of the right to protest at sea…the list gets longer each week, all combined with an ineffective fourth estate.

Globally, I see what is happening in Turkey and Brazil as part of a broader theme. I see these movements in the same overall theme as the London riots in 2012, the Occupy movement, the Arab Spring, the Indignados in Spain, the “Not our debt” movement in Ireland, the North Paris riots, and so on.

These movements are the expression of the disenfranchised and economically marginalised populations of the world, marginalised by the global impact of the neo-liberal policies of the last 30 years. Policies which you would have felt were fatally undermined by the 2008 Global Financial Crisis, but to which most governments remain committed with a return to business as usual approach.

So, where is, to coin a phrase used by Roberto Unger, the left alternative? Where is a focused and coherent philosophy to connect these movements with a political response that is committed to social justice, global development and empowerment in an environmentally sustainable way?

That is what the people in Gezi Park and on the streets of Rio de Janeiro are asking. People are also asking that same question in Whangarei and Timaru. It might not be explicit, but it is there.

Every year, June 20 is World Refugee Day. All over the world, governments, NGOs, and across the various offices of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) there will be events and celebrations to mark the day.

So, in that spirit, I wanted to write a celebratory and positive piece. Often as a refugee advocate I am full of lament, but I try to keep in mind what an amazing and wonderful framework the Refugee Convention actually is.

Every year the Refugee Convention provides direct protection to millions and millions of people. According to UNHCR’s most recent statistics, globally there were 10,549,686 refugees receiving protection with a total of 33,924,476 being persons of concern under UNHCR’s mandate (the larger figure includes internally displaced persons, stateless persons, and returning refugees). (These figures are the most up to date available and are from the end of 2010. Add an extra 1.4 million plus for refugees leaving Syria.)

It is hard to think of another piece of international law that provides such a tangible positive and immediate impact to so many. Now over 60 years old, the Refugee Convention is even more relevant today than at the completion of its drafting in 1951.

Last year I had an amazing World Refugee Day. Out in the midst of the crazy and hectic suburbs of Bangkok, I sat down in this tranquil, green haven from the complete chaos outside where the Bangkok Refugee Centre was holding its annual World Refugee Day celebrations.

The Bangkok Refugee Centre is funded, primarily by UNHCR, to provide core services to refugees. One of its main roles is supplying education to primary school aged children – there are few spots available, and these are prized by members of the refugee community.

For asylum seekers and refugees, the Bangkok Refugee Centre is probably the only place they can relax. They are illegal in Thailand and subject to a constant threat of extortion, arrest, detention, and summary deportation. Raids would often occur in apartment buildings where refugees were living. For them, the Bangkok Refugee Centre really was a haven.

For this World Refugee Day the Bangkok Refugee Centre decided to put on a show, with children from different cultural groups performing. The Sri Lankan girls started us off with a beautiful traditional Tamil dance, followed by the boys doing something less traditional – hip hop dancing, modestly reminding me of myself and my awesome break-dancing in my Form 2 Blue Light disco.

Then we had the Pakistani children give us a history lesson of each region of Pakistan with a song and dance specific to those regions. We had beautiful singing from the Vietnamese group, but then the party really started with the Congolese showing us all how they dance in Africa causing the eyes to pop out of the heads of some of the more conservative folks in the audience! Let’s just say there was some shakin’ going on…

The wonderful thing, though, was that this was the first time I had seen so many of them smile. It was an opportunity for the refugees to celebrate who they were, to forget for a few hours of the danger they were in – parents were beaming, taking photos of their kids like any proud parents would in any school around the world.

And for me, it made me incredibly proud too. Proud to be working with and for refugees. We often speak about refugees in this context of being desperate and without hope. But, this isn’t close to the real story. Refugees are survivors. They are resourceful, talented people who believe in their convictions and stand up for those beliefs. By fleeing persecution, they themselves take the step to transform from victimhood to empowerment. I am constantly amazed by the capacity of refugees to survive incredible trauma, to do so with dignity, and then to seek a better life for themselves and their families. Their commitment to themselves is, I think, eminently laudable.

So, on this World Refugee Day, find out what is going on in your town. If there is a celebration or event on World Refugee Day, go along. Take a moment to think about how amazing it is that we have an international framework where people fleeing fundamental human rights violations in their home country can access protection in a structured, rights based way.

This isn’t charity, though, nor is it strictly immigration policy. The Refugee Convention is a human rights remedy and States who willingly sign up to the Convention should be held accountable for providing the protection it mandates. So, don’t forget that either and remember that New Zealand has responsibilities as an international citizen.

I leave with final thoughts for different groups for this World Refugee Day:

The Refugees: you continue to inspire me with your strength and determination. Kia kaha.

UNHCR: thank you for your efforts in trying circumstances and with ever limited funding. But, don’t forget who you serve – be accessible for refugees, and do not treat them as mere beneficiaries of your service to be dispensed at your discretion, but as rights holders to whom you owe duties.

NGOs: remember you too are accountable to refugees. To HQ offices, be kind to people in the field and stop asking for so many reports!

The Government of Australia: (whoever wins the election) stop being punitive and become a leader in the region promoting a coherent and protection focused regional response.

The Government of New Zealand: stop trying to be like punitive Australia, and please lose the election next year.

To the Reader: celebrate World Refugee Day!

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/06/15/celebrate-world-refugee-day/feed/2Combating Child Poverty in the Courtshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/27/combating-child-poverty-in-the-courts/
https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/27/combating-child-poverty-in-the-courts/#commentsSun, 26 May 2013 20:05:04 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=14579This week in Wellington the rights of the child will be under the microscope. Child Poverty Action Group is taking on the Government in the Court of Appeal seeking a declaration that the impact of the “In Work Tax Credit” unfairly discriminates against 230,000 children.

For me, the case is critical because it could lead to a direct improvement in access to State support for 230,000 poor children. Beyond child poverty, though, I see this as also representing civil society holding Government to account. And, you know what, I reckon we could do with a bit more accountability holding!

Let’s start with the case.

The Working for Families package includes the “In Work Tax Credit”. The Government says that this provides an incentive for people to get into work with a credit of at least $60 a week (once you meet the complicated criteria).

However, Child Poverty Action Group says that this unfairly discriminates against children living in families not entitled to that credit.

According to Child Poverty Action Group, that loss of at least $60 a week means that children in those families “do not enjoy the same tax-funded support to eat well, keep healthy, warm and dry, and to participate in school activities and sport as others”. This has a particular and disproportionate impact on Māori and Pasifika families.

Rather than reducing child poverty, they say, this actually compounds child poverty by inadvertently targeting the poorest of the poor.

Inherently, that seems unfair. Why should these children be penalised because of their parents’ inability to meet the employment criteria? This isn’t the fault of the child. Yet, there also seems to be a good argument that people should be incentivised to work. Right? So, where is the balance?

Such a balancing exercise is at the heart of discrimination in human rights law. Here, there clearly is a discriminatory impact: one group of kids undeniably has better support from the State than another group of kids.

The question, then, for the Court to determine is whether this adverse impact is outweighed by a rational and legitimate policy objective. In New Zealand, that comes under section 5 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and whether this is a “justified limitation” on the right not to be discriminated against.

For me, this case comes together when you take a child rights centred approach.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is a rare example at international law of almost universal ratification by States. New Zealand ratified the CRC in 1993, while there are only two countries who have signed but not ratified the CRC – Somalia is one, while the other is one you might not have heard about, but it lies between Canada and Mexico…

Anyway, Article 3 of the CRC provides:

“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.” (my emphasis)

This is known as the “best interests of the child approach”, and is important in the CRC because it is mandatory. It shall be a primary consideration. There is nothing permissive about it. You have to do what is in the best interests of the child. This principle is considered binding at customary international law and States cannot opt out of this requirement (ie, it is non-derogable).

Taking a child centred approach, then, it is hard to see how punishing a child for the (in)actions of her parents is right. How is it in that particular child’s best interests that she not have the same level of State support as other children receive?

For me, the child rights centred/best interests of the child approach leads you to the conclusion that this denial of at least $60 a week cannot be justified. In simple terms, why punish these children?

But, I am not sure this approach will win out in the Court. I think this will all be about “work”, and not at all about the children, with the economy being our true State religion.

Child Poverty Action Group will also argue that the In Work Tax Credit conveniently ignores the reality of precarious work faced by most – if not all – poor families. With casual labour along with zero job or economic security, the obstacles to obtaining work meeting the criteria for the credit are immense. (book plug: if you haven’t already, read Guy Standing’s excellent The Precariat on the challenges facing modern workers).

I hope I am wrong. In another recent case, Atkinson (concerning disability carers), the Court of Appeal did say that there was discrimination based on family status. Of course, the Government responded exceptionally well to that decision as laid out by Andrew Geddis over at Pundit – I mean, they just completely ran roughshod over our constitutional conventions.

Which brings me back to my poorly phrased “accountability holding”. I think we need more of it. I find it interesting that we have seen the response to the disability carers case and this one on child poverty around the same time as the Constitution Conversation. I personally do not feel that now is the right time for a supreme law type constitutional document, and would prefer to see something organic grow out of a participatory bottom – up type process (how that would look, I am not sure…), but I do think we need to look at our accountability mechanisms for the exercise of State power.

I mean, imagine if you could challenge, for example, restrictions on the right to protest or the unfettered ability of the State to spy on you. But, hey, those things will never happen in New Zealand…

So, if you are in Wellington, go along to the Court of Appeal on 28 and 29 May. Watch “accountability holding” in action. I hope you find it contagious.

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard meet to discuss developing an ‘agreeable’ refugee policy.

We are at a crossroad when it comes to our refugee policy and treatment of those seeking protection from persecution. Why are we following Australia down a misguided path of viewing asylum seekers and refugees as an underclass less deserving of protection?

Most recently, of course, we have seen in New Zealand the proposed amendments to the Immigration Act, the so called “Mass Arrival Bill”. Although impossible to confirm, it appears to have been drafted either by the National Party’s favourite consultant, Mr Warner Brothers, or more probably by folks in Canberra.

The changes would allow for the detention of asylum seekers arriving by way of an “unauthorised vessel” (although not unaccompanied minors – it is not sure where they would go, maybe they could get work on the new youth wage for Petrobras). Less talked about, but potentially equally punitive, is the ban on these arrivals from being able to apply to sponsor their family members for at least three years.

The rhetoric – both in Australia and increasingly in New Zealand – is full of myths and mistruths. Fuelled by balanced comments from such noted human rights advocates as Winston Peters (note to Colin Craig: this is sarcasm, Winston will get it, so ask him to clarify), there is very little in the debate reflecting anything tangible for the refugees themselves: individuals and families fleeing to save their lives.

What remains is a convenient political picture painted of a cynical form of migration criminalised by the notion of people smuggling, but a picture far removed from reality and, ultimately, absent any empathy, compassion, or humanity.

Let’s take a brief look at two of the key myths out there.

MYTH 1: THE BOATS ARE COMING!

Really?

Well, no. We haven’t seen one yet.

What we have seen is the arrival of two boats in Australia with asylum seekers claiming they wanted to go to New Zealand, one in Darwin and another in Western Australia (the Government has also implied intelligence suggesting other attempts, but just how intelligent is our intelligence?). The last time I got out my National Geographic, however, both were on the other side of Australia with still a fair way to go and neither boat being able to continue its journey.

The truth is that any ability to circumnavigate from South East Asia to New Zealand would suggest a very serious abdication of Australia’s own border security, which is unlikely, or a sophisticated vessel able to somehow both avoid detection across a long journey and actually complete such a difficult journey. Doesn’t sound like an Indonesian fishing boat to me.

Any arrival by boat would also not overwhelm our refugee processing system. There is no literal or figurative wave of asylum seekers about to force themselves upon us. Recently, UN’s refugee agency (the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR) reported that there were 1,401,435 registered Syrian refugees in the countries surrounding Syria as a result of that conflict. Now, that’s a mass arrival!

Perhaps a less extreme example, but still instructive, is that to date in this calendar year over 30,000 asylum seekers have made the dangerous sea journey from Africa to Yemen.

Our situation just doesn’t compare. It’s almost a desperate attempt to be one of the big boys to suggest that we have a refugee problem when simply one does not exist.

Frankly, this highly unlikely event of a “mass arrival” to New Zealand is being used as scaremongering to justify a punitive shift in policy by a government determined to further compound social inequality across the board. If I am being charitable, the policy is misguided. If I am being cynical, the policy is about National Party politicians wanting to be Australian.

MYTH 2: REFUGEES ARE ECONOMIC MIGRANTS

Economic migrants are those looking for better work, education and other opportunities. This is a criticism often lobbed at those on the boats who seek to come to Australia: “they are just coming for our jobs”.

To help with this, let’s remind ourselves of what it is to be a refugee. The 1951 Refugee Convention defines a refugee as a person who is unable to return to her home country showing:

“…a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group…”

This is a legal definition at international law now with over 60 years of academic writing and jurisprudence.

The point is that claiming refugee status is not some untested assertion. For the fear to be “well-founded” requires an objective evidential basis to show why you cannot go back to your country. This includes evidence beyond what the asylum seeker can present herself (such as government reports, news reporting, and other independent verification).

The concept “of being persecuted” has been decided by courts all over the world to amount to serious harm (eg, death, torture, sexual or gender based violence – serious human rights violations) demonstrative of a failure of state protection. This is at the centre of the refugee framework. Where your State will not protect you, the community of nations will.

What are known as the “Convention grounds” – “race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group” – outline a requirement of a form of discrimination, that I fear for my life because I am a Roman Catholic. That is, there must be a clear causative connection between the harm feared and one of the grounds. (For those of you new to discrimination or…ahem…race relations, I would be happy to squash in a posting on the test at international law for discrimination in the future).

So, and through this very cursory overview, we can see that refugee status requires clear elements that must be satisfied. It is not a vacuous concept.

This is important when we look at the statistics for boat arrivals in Australia and the ultimate acceptance rate:

Year

Grants

Refusals

Total Decisions

Grant rate

2008-09

209

0

209

100%

2009-10

2,151

28

2,179

98.7%

2010-11

2,719

190

2,909

93.5%

2011-12

4,766

474

5,240

91.0%

(Source: Refugee Council of Australia citing the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship)

What this says to me is that an extremely high proportion of those arriving by boat in Australia are genuine refugees! They meet the very strict criteria we outlined above. They are not all economic migrants, far from it. They have independent and objective evidence of fleeing a level of harm that is serious, that is due to a fundamental human rights violation, and is clearly discriminatory rising to the level of persecution. They are not looking for work, they are trying to save their lives!

How can we not help such people? Why do we further traumatize and criminalise these people through our policies of denial? When did New Zealand become a nation of people who didn’t care? If we do care, why do we let politicians in our name pursue such punitive measures?

These are just two of the myths. Of course, there are many more and we can cover these in later postings if need be. For now, let’s not fall for the rhetoric and remember that refugees are victims of serious trauma – our humanity demands we protect them.

Editor’s Note: This is Michael Timmins’ first post with The Daily Blog.

]]>https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/06/interpreting-our-refugee-policy/feed/5About Michael Timminshttps://thedailyblog.co.nz/2013/05/01/about-michael-timmins/
Tue, 30 Apr 2013 21:07:45 +0000http://thedailyblog.co.nz/?p=10521Michael Timmins is an international human rights lawyer. Specialising in refugee rights, Michael has worked in Egypt, the United States, Australia, Thailand and his home country of New Zealand across roles in advocacy, academia, and government.

Michael’s writing covers international human rights, counter-terrorism, international environmental law, rule of law and accountability issues, as well as anything interesting happening in international relations.